WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 12 December 1962 vol 245 cc708-80

4.25 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 19:

Minimum acceptable flows

19.—

(4) Before preparing so much of any draft statement under this section as relates to any particular inland water, the river authority shall consult—

(a) any statutory water undertakers having the right to abstract water therefrom;

EARL WALDEGRAVE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (a) and to substitute: all statutory water undertakers whose limits of supply are comprised wholly or partly within the river authority area and any other statutory water undertakers who have a right to abstract water from that inland water". The noble Earl said: In this part of the Bill we are considering the assessment of the water resources. We are really getting down to the roots of the Bill in the basis of control of abstraction of water from rivers or inland waters; of what is to be the minimum acceptable flow when we have safe-guarded public health and taken account of the needs of agriculture, fisheries and industry and everything else.

Under Clause 19 each river authority is required to determine for which rivers minimum flows must be fixed and in what order they are to do the fixing. The existing abstraction rights of any statutory water undertaking in any particular river authority have, of course, a bearing on this, and under subsection (4) (a) of the clause as it is now drafted the river authorities are required to consult any statutory water undertakers having the right to extract water therefrom;"— that is, from the particular inland water in respect of which an acceptable minimum flow is being fixed. I submit that this provision is altogether too limited. Surely the prospective requirements of the statutory water undertakers ought also to be taken into account. I suggest that paragraph (a), as drafted, is too limited because it fails to take into account the interest the statutory water undertakers may have in the river to which they are looking for the future source of supply.

Moreover, the paragraph, as it stands, seems to me entirely to disregard tributaries of a river. The minimum acceptable flow of a tributary would have an effect on a main river much as the minimum acceptable flow in a main river would have an effect on a tributary, and it seems to me that in fixing minimum flows consultation should take place about all the rivers within the limits of supply of the statutory water undertaker. I think also that the consultation must cover the case where abstraction is from a river outside the limits of supply. I hope that the words that I suggest in my Amendment will cover this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 17, leave out from ("any") to end of line 18 and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Waldegrave.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

The noble Earl, Lord Waidegrave, considers that subsection (4) (a), as at present drafted, is too limited. We, on the other hand, feel that the Amendment he has put down goes to the opposite extreme and has a much too unlimited effect. Is the requirement set out in the Bill really as limited and inadequate as the noble Earl implies? In the Government view it certainly is not. Clause 19 is concerned with the determination of minimum acceptable flows—flows which among other things are to be the minimum needed—and here I quote from subsection (5): for meeting the requirements of existing law ful uses of the inland water …". Obviously, water undertakers taking water from a particular river should be consulted about the minimum flow of that river, and the clause already makes appropriate provision for this. But other water undertakers within the river authority's area, abstracting either from other inland waters or indeed from sources of supply outside the area, cannot be said to have such a great interest, and there is really no case, I submit, for requiring the river authority to consult them.

I should like to give the Committee two cases which will illustrate this argument graphically. In the course of time the Trent River authority might well resolve to determine a minimum acceptable flow for the River Soar, which flows northwards through Leicester, or the River Derwent, which flows southwards from the Peak through Derby. Birmingham, on the upper reaches of the River Tame and Rea, near the boundary of the catchment area, obtains its water supplies from another river authority, primarily from the catchment of the Wye, in Wales, and will supplement those supplies from the Severn; it has no immediate interest in either the Soar or the Derwent. But this Amendment would require the Trent river authority to consult Birmingham about minimum acceptable flows on those rivers, whereas Birmingham's major interest will be in the flows determined for the rivers Wye and Severn, and the clause as drafted would secure that the Birmingham undertaking was consulted about these rivers.

Secondly, the Colne Valley Water Company obtains all its supplies from the chalk aquifer in North-West Hertfordshire in the Thames catchment. The Amendment would require the river authority for that catchment to consult the company about a statement concerning flows in the Cherwell or the Kennet, which are of no direct concern at all to the company. Undertakings abstracting from the Thames itself, however, will be vitally concerned with the flows in those rivers; and the clause as drafted looks after them. Were the Amendment to be accepted, therefore, much unnecessary work would be placed on river authorities, and to no real purpose. The amount of this unnecessary work should not be discounted. In some of the larger river authority areas there are likely to be some 20 large undertakings—probably more in the early years.

Finally, there are two things to be borne in mind; first, that by Clause 14 the river authority are required to make surveys of resources and the demands upon them, and as a result will be well aware of the needs of statutory water undertakers. The noble Earl referred to looking to future sources of supply, and under Clause 14 it is precisely the duty of the river authority to take that into account. In fact, in Clause 14 (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), the demands of statutory water undertakers are specifically mentioned as being important; they alone are picked out in those paragraphs. Secondly, the procedure for handling draft statements of minimum acceptable flow requires notice of them to be published in newspapers circulating locally, so that the statutory water undertakers away from the river immediately affected will not go unregarded or without information. In general, those two points should, I think, be regarded as sufficient to deal with the few cases where there may be an indirect interest in the minimum acceptable flow in a particular river. I hope that my explanation will have satisfied the noble Earl that his Amendment goes too wide, and that in point of fact the interests of which he is thinking and which may be indirectly affected are well looked after in the Bill as it is.

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

It certainly was not the intention of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, nor is it mine, to add any complication to an already complicated procedure. At the same time, this Amendment does, I think, enshrine a point of some importance which has not been wholly covered by the assurance given by the noble Lord who replied for the Government. We want to see some words in the Bill to ensure that at the time when the minimum flow is being determined prospective requirements of statutory water undertakings, as well as their existing rights to abstract, should be taken into consideration. I believe that is the main point we are endeavouring to secure, and if we can have an assurance that that will be borne in mind I am sure my noble friend will be content to withdraw the Amendment.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I agree that I should; but I was a little confused by the noble Lord's reply that these matters are really covered in Clause 14 (1) (a) and (b) because those two provisions say that the river authority shall carry out an estimate of future demand; and all we are asking is that a statutory water undertaking which has itself made this estimate of future demand from a certain river should have a right of consultation about these prospective demands when minimum flows in the rivers are being settled. Like the noble Lord. Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, the last thing I want to do is to make a difficult and complicated procedure, and provided the noble Lord can assure me that statutory water undertakings' future prospective requirements will be taken into consideration, and that these statutory water undertakers will be consulted under the Bill as it now stands, I shall have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS

I think I can give the noble Earl those undertakings. The whole process of minimum acceptable flows goes through the mill very thoroughly before they are ever agreed, and the interests will be looked after. As has been said by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, and also by myself previously, we are considering a form of words which will look after the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. We have not yet reached our conclusions. In respect of this particular Amendment, although the water undertakings which draw water from a source of supply other than the particular river will not be directly consulted, they will have information of this and they will be entitled to make any statement they wish about it. It has to be remembered that the river authority covers the whole river basin, perhaps more than one river basin, so if the statutory water undertakings are within that river authority's area the assumption can, I think, be safely made that all the interests in the area will be considered continuously through every aspect of water management.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

I shall consider what the noble Lord has said and read very carefully in Hansard the assurance he has given, and I hope that I shall not have to come back with this point at a later stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (a): or from underground strata where the level of water in the strata depends wholly or partly on the flow of water in the inland water".

The noble Lord said: As we have heard on the previous Amendment, Clause 19 deals with the scheme for minimum acceptable flows to be fixed by the river authorities, and subsection (4) obliges the river authorities to consult with the statutory water undertakings having a right to abstract water from the inland water which is under consideration by the river authority. The Amendment proposes that the consultation with the statutory undertakers should be extended to bring in not only the water undertakers abstracting from the inland water but also those undertakers abstracting from the underground strata that may be affected by the fixing of the minimum acceptable flow in the inland water. This is a technical point. I am informed that in some instances the flows in the rivers and streams are related to the level of the water in the underground strata in the proximity, and this Amendment is designed to cure the defect which it is thought appears in Clause 19 (4). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 18, after ("therefrom") insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren)

LORD HASTINGS

There is some force in this Amendment. As the noble Lord says, it is a technical point, and in some cases, but not in all, there is a connection between the water level in the underground strata and in the flow of the river or stream. As drafted, the Amendment is too categorical. It may be a matter of extreme difficulty to reach any certainty that the level of the underground water depends on the flow of water in the river in any particular case. The better thing to do, I think, would be to provide in somewhat more open terms for a situation in which it appears that there is some connection between the two. If the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment, the Government will undertake to consider the technical and drafting implications to see whether we can do something to meet the intention of the noble Lord's Amendment, without opening the field to unnecessary dispute over various cases.

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I do not claim to be a Parliamentary draftsman, and in view of what he has said I most willingly withdraw the Amendment and look forward to seeing improved words at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.42 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

This Amendment seeks to make it obligatory for the river authorities to consult with the fisheries interests before producing their schemes for minimum flow. As your Lordships will realise, the amount of water in a river is of vital importance particularly to people concerned with fisheries. As was said on earlier Amendments, it is much more difficult to object to a scheme which has been already formulated—obviously they would have a right to do that—than for them to make their opinion felt during the time when the scheme is being formulated. There are several bodies which have to be consulted before a scheme is made. This Amendment would add any) association of people appearing to the Minister to be a substantial fishery interest. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 26, at end insert— ("(e) any association or person appearing to the river authority to represent a substantial fishery interest in respect thereof").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)

I am sure that everybody present will sympathise with the views expressed by my noble friend about minimum flows of water in relation to fisheries. I may say straight away that it will be essential for water authorities to take fishing into account in considering this important matter. In fact, as my noble friend reminded the Committee, in subsection (5), immediately following, specific mention is made of fishing in order that agriculture, industry and navigation and the requirements of fishing must be taken into account by water authorities in determining the flow to be specified.

I feel certain that they will be taken into account, but I must ask your Lordships not to go further than this and to insist on prior consultation with fishing interests. The Bill has confined consultation to bodies which have a statutory responsibility or function directly related to, or affected by, the inland water concerned. There is no body representing fisheries that comes in this definition. Furthermore, fisheries is only one of the interests affected by minimum flow. Were special consideration to be conceded to them at this point, manufacturing interests and agriculture would undoubtedly claim equal treatment.

Finally, I would add that there is a procedure laid down in Schedule 6 which provides for advertisement so that fishery interests will know what is going on and can make objections which can be considered at a public inquiry before the river authority statement on minimum acceptable flow can be approved. Schedule 6 provides that a notice must be published stating the general effect of the draft statement and specifying a place in the river authority area where a copy of the draft statement and of any relevant map can be inspected free of charge by any person during a period of 28 days. The Schedule goes on to make it clear that any person may within that period object to the draft statement. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord and his noble friend, and that they will feel able to withdraw their Amendment.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Before the Amendment is withdrawn, could I ask the Minister whether there is not a case for fishery interests to be consulted, as the Amendment suggests? It is true that the Minister says that certain statutory bodies are defined, but all this Amendment does is to copy the wording of the River Boards Act, 1948. If it was considered necessary and desirable in the River Boards Act, 1948, to specify the need for consultation with substantial fishery interests, it is not unreasonable to say that fishery interests Should not be deprived of the benefit of that requirement in present legislation. Why should fishery interests be, as it were, denigrated in this legislation as compared with the River Boards Act, 1948?

LORD ST. OSWALD

There is, of course, no question of denigration. The point that the noble Lord has made has been made on previous Amendments. The fact is that the river authority has a larger number of responsibilities than had the river boards. Therefore, a larger number of bodies are in fact involved in the decisions of the river authority than were involved in the decisions of the river boards, and therefore a greater number of bodies would have to be brought in at this point were fisheries to be given this concession. We think that these bodies should at this point in the Bill be restricted to statutory bodies, and there is no statutory body which can answer for fisheries. But we feel that fishery interests are taken care of, both earlier than and after this point.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am disappointed at the noble Lord's reply. I thought that here there was a case for consultation. He said that there would not be a need to include fishery interests because certain other interests would be consulted before the order was made. I have not included those, but probably there could well be a case for several other interests to be consulted before the order was made, rather than to be in the position of objecting afterwards. But I do not intend to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (4): ( ) any body of persons designated to them for this purpose by the Minister as being representative of a class of persons having the right to abstract water therefrom".

The noble Viscount said: I refrained from intruding in the discussion on the last Amendment because I think that, although it is close to it, this Amendment raises a slightly different point. Nevertheless, some of the things my noble friend Lord St. Oswald has just said in answer to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney are very relevant. First of all, he indicated that if he gave way in the case of fishing interests it would be very likely that others would come forward and ask for a similar consultation. That, indeed, is exactly what I am doing, because, of course, the class of persons who are the most likely to be interested under the terms of my Amendment are, in fact, industry. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has taken a very curious stand on this matter. Why has he decided that it shall be the statutory bodies which are consulted first? I can see no earthly reason for making this distinction, except on a purely arbitrary basis.

I invite your Lordships to look at the subject in this way. The minimum flow in a river is going to be laid down for various parts of the river by the river authority. They will have control points along the course of the river, and at each point there is, as I understand it, to be a minimum flow laid down. So that all along the river there will be different minimum flows, getting bigger, of course, as the river gets nearer the sea. But once the minimum flow has been laid down—although it is true that in Part II of Schedule 6 there are methods of amending the statement about minimum flow—I hardly think it is likely that the process of defining a minimum flow is going to happen very often. But when it does happen particularly in the first instance, it is going to be a matter of cardinal importance to people who use the river, whether for navigation, for fisheries, or for extracting water, such as statutory water undertakers, and, of course, those very large users of water, industry.

The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has said that this is all right in the case of industry for two reasons. Industry is taken care of in subsection (5) of this clause, which says that the flow so specified shall be the minimum which in the opinion of the river authority is needed for safeguarding various things and for meeting the requirements of among other things industry. If the river authority does not consult industry before it lays down the minimum flow, how does it know what industry requires from that river? It seems to me to be ludicrous to ask them to lay dawn some specified minimum flow to take account of the needs of industry and then to refuse to allow them to consult industry beforehand. On the other hand, if the noble Lord intends that they shall consult industry, why does he not put it in the Bill?

I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, said about this procedure in the 1961 Schedule, on which Lord St. Oswald relied. Of course, everyone will have a chance to object at a public inquiry. But everyone knows what that means. By that time river authority opinion will have crystallised; they will have made up their minds, having consulted with the four privileged bodies which are at the moment named in this clause; and they will have got together and decided what they think is the minimum flow. It stands to reason that it is going to be very much more difficult at that stage to shift that opinion than it would be at the time when it was fluid—that is to say, before the draft statement was made. Furthermore, it would be very much less expensive to do it in that way, because at a long public inquiry such as would probably happen in these cases no doubt there would be legal representation and much argument would take place, this way and that. I feel sure that it is not that sort of atmosphere which is right for fixing a requirement, such as that of industry, in this vital matter.

Therefore, I hope that my noble friend Lord St. Oswald will think about this point again. I do not consider that his alleged safeguards go nearly far enough. I feel it would be much more sensible to abandon this curious distinction between some statutory and some non-statutory bodies, and to see whether he cannot do a little better in getting the proper opinions of the proper people long before the draft comes out. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 26, at end insert the said I paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment. I have spoken on various occasions on behalf of the statutory bodies, but it seems to me that this Amendment is most reasonably worded. I cannot imagine that there could be any objection in principle to its adoption. It is consistent, as I understand it, with the opening remarks of the noble Earl at the beginning of this Committee stage in regard to the Government's intention on consultation. As my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, one cannot see how the minimum flow can adequately and properly be determined without consultation with the bodies designated by the Minister as interested people. I would therefore strongly support this Amendment.

LORD ST. OSWALD

This Amendment, as my noble friend has explained, would require the Minister to designate the class of persons, over and above the bodies already named in Clause 19 (4), that the river authority would be required to consult—the specially designated bodies of persons—before preparing a draft statement about minimum acceptable flows. In reply to Amendment No. 51, which concerned the single interest of fisheries, I explained that river authorities are required, before preparing the draft statement of minimum acceptable flows, to consult those bodies which have statutory responsibility or statutory function directly related to, or affected by, the inland water concerned. By applying this definition we are able, without making the list too long, to make special provision for bodies with statutory interests.

My noble friend asked me why the list should be restricted to statutory bodies. One reason, of course, is that statutory bodies have statutory obligations. If the present Amendment were accepted it would be very difficult indeed to draw the line. Having accepted for the designated purposes one or two bodies of persons which have not a statutory responsibility or statutory function, it would be difficult not to designate also a further long list of bodies. My noble friend, following on the previous Amendment, has already, one might say, started an anonymous snowball. I should have thought it better not to require a river authority to consult a large number of interests in this way. It is our belief that we can safely leave it to the authority to consult such interests where they find good reason to do so, and it will of course be in their interests, as well as dictated by good sense, so to do. As I explained earlier, the provision made in subsection (6) of the clause and in Schedule 6 for objections to be lodged gives full opportunity for those interested who consider they should have been consulted to make their views known. I hope that in view of this explanation my noble friend will not press his Amendment.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

I do not want to detain the Committee for more than sixty seconds. I rise to tell the noble Lord who has replied to this Amendment that the Government have put themselves to some little trouble because they have ignored the First Schedule of the River Boards Act, 1948, and have not brought it into this Bill. If the same sort of procedure that has been operating from 1948 to 1962 had been transported into this Bill, then the last three Amendments would not have been moved, and I think the situation would have been just as easy or even easier. Although perhaps movement here or there might be to some extent slowed down, once the river authorities became really active their work would be accepted and approved by all these various statutory and non-statutory authorities. I regret that the noble Lord, or his right honourable friend, did not put into this Bill what is in the First Schedule of the 1948 Act, as it would have saved a lot of trouble and time.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very sorry to think that the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has had to stand so firm by his previous answer to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney. It does not seem to me that he has, in the very least, answered the points that I attempted to make. Naturally, I have no objection whatever to his putting in statutory authorities who have something to do with the river, and requiring consultation to take place with them beforehand. That is not the point. I am not criticising that in the least. What I am criticising is the fact that he has put in only those statutory authorities and has not spread his net a little wider. He does not seem to me to have answered the point at all, nor does he seem to have covered the remarks that I was making about the desirability of getting this matter threshed out beforehand, so as to avoid having to take an objection to an inquiry, as provided in Schedule 6. Both of those seem to me to be very relevant points, and the only thing that my noble friend has been able to say is that he hopes the river authorities will in fact use their common sense and consult where they think necessary. That is exactly what I am trying to make them do.

I am not by this Amendment requiring the Minister to designate anybody. It is not mandatory upon him to do so, and I hope that the noble Lord does not think that the Amendment so reads. I am saying, in so many words, that the Minister may designate bodies that he thinks should be consulted, and, if that is what the noble Lord wants river authorities to do before they fix the minimum flow, why is it that he will not accept this Amendment to put that in the Bill? It does not lay any hard and fast duty on the Minister to specify any certain body or rivers. So far as I understand it, he could designate different people to consult in the case of different river authorities. So it does not seem to me that my Amendment is shackling him in any way. Could not the noble Lord think about this again?

LORD ST. OSWALD

I would point out to my noble friend that one thing he seems to have ignored is that, of course, the river authority will have been made well aware of any of these interests by the membership on the board of those representing, for instance, fisheries. Quite clearly, a river authority will not wish to enter into difficulties caused by objections after the drafting. They will try to avoid those difficulties by obviating those objections.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, raised a point which I think I answered yesterday. He said that the provisions of his Act could have been placed straight into this Bill, without taking into account the fact that the river authority has far wider functions than the river boards and therefore is concerned with far wider interests and a far larger number of bodies than those which concern the river boards. However, I agree that the case has been very carefully, thoughtfully and reasonably argued, and I should like to look at it again as my noble friend has asked me to do.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.4 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (5), after "health" to insert: "and the amenity of the countryside". The noble Viscount said: I think that it falls to me to move this Amendment, and in so doing I may say that I find it a very great pleasure indeed to come upon an occasion when I agree so wholeheartedly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley, opposite. The matter to which this Amendment relates was in some degree foreshadowed yesterday by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe when he was making his general remarks about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the proper care of amenity in all functions under this Bill. I very much appreciated hearing his thesis on this particular subject yesterday. Nevertheless, I was not altogether happy with the short reference that he made to this particular subsection of Clause 19.

It is quite evident, I think, that the minimum flow in any river is a matter which is of the greatest possible importance to the amenities of the countryside, particularly where the river flows through a beautiful part of the world. Your Lordships will see in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this clause, as I mentioned on my previous Amendment, that there are going to be different control points all along the river, at each of which the minimum flow will be specified and laid down. In determining the flow at each of these points, the river authority are required by subsection (5) to have regard to the character of the inland water surroundings, and later on they are required to take into account various things, including public health and all the other interests connected with the river, but there is no mention at all of amenity.

As I understood my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, he was of the opinion that the regard which the authority are required to have to the character of the inland water and its surroundings when they lay down the minimum flow for the river at various points, was sufficient protection for the amenities of the countryside. I very much doubt whether this is so, and although I do not want to strain the wards in this, I think that they are ambiguous to a degree where it would be wise to make them very much clearer.

Let me take, for instance, a river like the Tees or the Tyne, which at their mouths are industrial, shipbuilding rivers but whose upper waters flow into very beautiful countryside up in the hills, in the interiors of Durham and Northumberland. When the minimum flow is arranged for each of the points, it is required to be laid down having regard to the character of the river. What is the character of a river like the Tees or the Tyne? People might very well say that they are shipbuilding rivers, and have complete disregard of the amenities which are so important in the upper reaches. I think that is unlikely, but I think the "character of the inland water", unless it is related to each of the points at which the minimum flow is going to be specified, leaves the matter vague, and invites disregard of the very things that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe was so anxious to preserve.

I wonder, therefore, whether the duty of the river authorities in this respect would not be brought out much more clearly if words such as those which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley, and I are suggesting in the Amendment were put in where we think they should be. I do not know if this is necessarily the right way to do it, but I do think, particularly in this function, that the duty on the river authorities to regard amenity, and see that it is preserved, is of paramount importance, and I do not want this Bill to proceed any further without making sure that the drafting is adequate to cover this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 33, after ("health") insert ("and the amenity of the countryside").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD CHORLEY

May I apologise to the Committee, for not being in my place when this Amendment was called? I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for putting the the arguments in favour of it so clearly and succinctly as not to require anything more from myself. Perhaps I may just add, that not only has this problem of minimum flow always been one of great concern to the amenities movement, but in addition there have been a number of occasions when the amenities have been very seriously affected. I appreciate that a good deal of care has been taken in this particular Bill, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, pointed out in his general speech yesterday. Nevertheless, it would be quite unrealistic not to realise that this problem, particularly in connection with the words chosen here, has caused a good deal of feeling and a good deal of apprehension in the amenities movement. For this reason it seemed to us very important that this subsection should be strengthened in the way suggested in the Amendment. If, as the noble Viscount has said, some better form of words can be found, or if the matter can be put clearly somewhere else, we should be very grateful. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred earlier to this particular Amendment in a way which gave us some little reason to hope, and I trust that he will now be able to tell us that our hopes were justified.

5.11 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

I must confess that I have my doubts whether this Amendment is necessary. First of all, in determining a minimum acceptable flow a river authority are already required, as both noble Lords have pointed out, to have regard to the character and flow of the inland water and its surroundings, as earlier lines of this particular subsection make perfectly clear. I made it, I hope, equally clear during our Second Reading debate that this wording was intended to cover amenity; and, as my noble friend may remember, I again assured the Committee yesterday that this was the case. If one is talking about the character of a beautiful inland water, beauty is part of that character—as, indeed, I hope it is part of my noble friend's and my own character. But it does seem here that the larger includes the smaller. As for my noble friend's fears that the river authority would take account of only, say, one part of the river, I do not think that those are valid. I know that subsection (5) does not talk about a river, but refers to an inland water. But if he will turn to the definitions on page 96, he will see that "inland water" is defined as, so much of any river … as is within any of the river authority areas;". It is the whole of the river, including the parts of the river. I think there is no doubt that this requirement is laid upon the river authority for the whole of the river.

But, apart from that, the river authority, in preparing a statement, will naturally be bound also by Clause 93, the amenity clause; and under that clause they are bound in all their proposals and all their dealings, to take due account of the desirability of preserving beauty. There is thus no question of the Government's overlooking the importance of amenity here, and no absence of awareness that in some areas the actual flow of a river is the very stuff of its natural beauty. I said something to this effect yesterday, and I am glad to echo again what I said then and what the noble Lord himself has just said on that. I think we are all agreed there. But I feel that the Bill as drafted, both in this clause and in Clause 93, does in fact ensure that proper regard will be paid, both by the river authorities and by the Minister, who will be taking the final decisions in these matters as regards the statements of minimum flow, to this question.

I should also like to suggest to the Committee that the method in the Bill is perhaps a better way of dealing with this matter than requiring the river authority to prescribe a flow which will safeguard "the amenity of the countryside," to use the wording of the Amendment. Indeed, it seems to me that the wording suggested my my noble friend and by the noble Lord. Lord Chorley, might have an undesirably limiting effect, since it relates entirely to the amenity of the country and would seem to ignore urban landscape. To take my noble friend's own example, the River Tyne does not flow only through the beautiful upper reaches: it flows also through Newcastle, and it makes a very nasty smell in the process at times. I think that his Amendment, if adopted, would unduly limit the amenity considerations to which the river authorities should have regard. I do not wish to dogmatise over this, but the Amendment seems to me to have its defects, and I feel that the Bill as drafted already safeguards amenity in this admittedly very important regard.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It may well be that there are defects in this Amendment. Nevertheless, the point remains—and I think it is admitted, probably, by all noble Lords —that what is really required is to draw to the attention of the river authority, when they are exercising their functions under this clause, their duty to preserve amenity. The noble Earl has been very subtle in his disquisition on the meaning of "character" when applied to an inland water, and I think that if one listens to him with equal subtleness the full fragrance of the meaning of this word becomes apparent. Nevertheless, this subtlety might not come out quite so clearly to ordinary people when they are just b reading the subsection of the Act, as it does to this Committee when we have the advantage of listening to my noble friend. If what we mean is "amenity", why do we not say "amenity", and not "character"? Although I am sure that there are defects in the way I have suggested, I think that perhaps my noble friend might have another look at this question to see whether he could get the word "amenity" into this subsection somewhere, so as to emphasise it.

EARL JELLICOE

I should be very sorry to lose "character".

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Have both.

EARL JELLICOE

I think it might be possible to fit in bath; I do not know. It is my view that "character" embraces beauty—or should.

LORD CHORLEY

Perhaps I might interrupt the noble Earl. I wonder whether he would agree that in some cases character is quite different from beauty. There are, after all, ugly characters. It might well be that the character of a particular stretch of river is not mainly a question of beauty but rather one of amenity; and that is why the word "amenity" is more appropriate. I feel that there is a certain fallacy in the noble Earl's argument, and I hope that he will look at it again.

EARL JELLICOE

I do not want to bandy words about character and beauty, but, of course, we already have the word "beauty" in Clause 93, very clearly and beautifully inserted there. The words are, … having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty … The clause reads: In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the performance of any of their functions under this Act, river authorities … having regard to the desirability", and so on. It is extremely specific there, and I think that it does in fact cover the position. But I fully sympathise with the general objective of the Amendment. If we could pop "amenity" or "beauty" into this particular subsection at a suitable place (I should not want to take out "character") I should be glad to have a try.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am acting an all persons role this afternoon, but, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cawley, I beg to move this Amendment. With respect of my noble friend, I am not altogether sure that he is really doing something which is necessary in suggesting that the Committee should accept this Amendment, because, unless I am wrong, the Minister would have power to do what he requires under the provisions of Clause 95(2) of this Bill. If that is so, I need say no more, but I think it is clear that what my noble friend was after was to ensure that people who were bound to be extremely interested in the minimum flow to be laid down should not have to wait too long before they found out. It might have a great effect on planning to be made for fisheries or other uses of water and the matter should not be allowed to drag out. If the matter is already covered I beg the Committee's pardon for raising it, but hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will reassure us on this. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 42, at end insert— ( )If within two years from the second appointed day a river authority have not submitted to the Minister a draft statement under subsection (3) of this section in respect of any particular inland water in their area, the Minister may, either on the application of any person appearing to him to represent a substantial interest in that inland water, or otherwise, direct the river authority to submit a draft statement in respect of that inland water within twelve months of the giving of such directions").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Before the Minister rises and relies upon Clause 95 (2), which undoubtedly he will, may I ask him to consider the merits of this Amendment in that it defines in terms of time the limits of uncertainty of any agricultural-fishery interest in the case of a recalcitrant river board. Reliance on 95 (2) is reliance on the general powers of the Minister. But such reliance does not give any comfort that there is a specific period of time within which the Minister will act. That is the main point of this Amendment and I hope the Government will consider that aspect.

LORD HASTINGS

Basically, of course, the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment is quite correct and we share his view that this Amendment is not necessary; but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, I shall elaborate a little. Of course, under Clause 95, subsection (2) or (1), the Minister has the comprehensive power of direction which he needs in this particular case. What it comes to is that the Minister might well find it necessary to give these directions before the two years which are put down in the Amendment have elapsed. Whereas last night I gave way to the feelings of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and other noble Lords in respect of the time factor relating to the period for which forward estimates should be made, and I think there was something in that, in this case I do not now feel there is.

After all, the Minister, the Water Resources Board and the river authorities themselves have to produce their minimum flows for all river basins before they can operate anything effectively under this Bill. It is the basis of the whole national water policy, and it is quite inconceivable that the Ministry or any of the others are going to fall down on the job; and I would surmise it would depend on the different river authorities' areas how much information is already available and how long it will take to gather the rest, but apart from this variation it is quite obvious that the Minister and the Water Resources Board and the river authorities will be getting on with the job as fast as they possibly can. I doubt very much whether the Minister is going to wait for two years in any case where it is obvious that a particular river authority is not doing its job effectively.

I am sure this Amendment is unnecessary. As to representation from other people, the Amendment will not help that. There is nothing to stop representation direct to the Minister now. Representations are frequently made, unasked for. That point is not relevant. I am willing to help noble Lords, but I do not think that we really want to put in things which are unnecessary and are virtually telling the Minister and others to do those things which obviously they will do in any case, and perhaps very much sooner.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am much obliged to my noble friend, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD CHAMPION

May I ask a question under this clause? It is, as I understand it, under this clause and subsequent clauses in Part III of this Bill that each river authority concerned will decide upon and the Minister will approve the minimum acceptable flow necessary to safeguard the interests set out in subsection (5). I would think this would impose on the river authority concerned an obligation to maintain that minimum flow. Will that mean that any interests affected in the event of the flow not being maintained at the settled minimum will have the right of action against the river authority? And, if so, as in Clause 48 in relation to protected rights, will it be a defence for the river authority concerned to show that the failure to maintain the minimum acceptable flow arose from exceptional drought? One can visualise there may be circumstances in which it might be in the public interest to lessen the minimum acceptable flow in the interests particularly of the domestic water consumer; and I would have thought that, if there were this obligation and if the situation might be actionable, there should be words somewhere in this Bill to safeguard the river authorities in the circumstances I have mentioned. It might well be that this is covered somewhere in the Bill and in my ignorance I have not found it, but I would like an answer to this question I am now putting.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for letting me know he was going to put this question. I only learned of it—not through any fault of the noble Lord or of anyone else—a short time ago. Therefore the answer which I shall give is subject to correction, but I think I have the position right.

LORD CHAMPION

Did the noble Earl say it appeared I had not given adequate notice? I mentioned it last night. I would have hoped he would come prepared with the answer.

EARL JELLICOE

No, the noble Lord misheard me. I said that in fact I learned of the question only a short time ago and it was through no fault of his or of anyone else. The point which the noble Lord raises, as I understand it, is whether there is a statutory duty on the river authorities to maintain the minimum acceptable flow and, if so, whether there is a right of action against the river authorities if they fail to do so. A part answer is that, in considering applications for licences to abstract, the river authorities in dealing with the applications shall, in the wording of Clause 29 (6), on page 26 have regard to the need to secure that the flow at any control point will not be reduced below the minimum acceptable flow at that point. It is not, however, made a duty for the river authorities, for example, to carry out work to maintain that flow, and although, given the wording which I have just read out, an obligation lies on river authorities, I do not think that it can be said that in the Bill as drafted it is an absolute duty. In fact, I do not think that this would be practicable, in view of matters like droughts and unforeseen circumstances, and there is consequently not the right of action.

However, it is clear in the Bill that a river authority must not authorise further extraction if it would prejudice the minimum acceptable flow or if it would derogate from protected rights. But while I understand that is the position, there is no absolute duty and therefore no right of action. I would remind your Lordships that, in the case of an incompetent or inefficient river authority, there is, in Clause 56, the default powers of the Minister.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Is there not to-day an overriding power in the Minister, for instance, to order a diminution of the flow of water for ordinary users in order to conserve? I happen to be fairly well acquainted with this because near my home we have a couple of reservoirs. Every day they pass so much water through and the Minister has power to make an order, which he publishes, to reduce the amount. The noble Lord said that there might be a conflict of interests here between the people in the towns and other users and, if the full amount were being passed through, they might suffer. So far as I know, this is quite satisfactorily catered for by some power which the Minister has under some existing Act. Unless that is repealed in this Bill, then I should have thought that that power still existed and the Minister could do whatever was necessary as between riparian users and large towns taking water from reservoirs.

EARL JELLICOE

I think that I am in some danger here of getting out of my depth and therefore I do not wish to venture too far. I do not know the answer to my noble friend's specific question. I will endeavour to find out and write to him about it and, if necessary, inform any other noble Lords on this point. I would add that the lack of absolute duty is reinforced not only by the default power in Clause 56 but also by the power to give direction in Clause 95.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Periodical review of minimum acceptable flows]:

LORD DE RAMSEY

I put the principle behind this Amendment to your Lordships on Clause 19 last night, and in withdrawing my Amendment, I reserved my position on Report Stage. This Amendment, as I explained then, is a consequential one, but if the noble Earl was able to add anything to his statement late last night on Clause 19, it might avoid my having to raise the matter again at Report stage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 2, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Ministers")—(Lord De Ramsey.)

EARL JELLICOE

As the noble Lord has reminded us, at the end of a fairly long Committee stage last night, we had embarked upon our preliminary discussion of the 32 Amendments standing in his name, in which he seeks to add in the Bill the little letter "s" to "Minister". This came up on Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 and my noble friends Lord Jessel and Lord Amherst of Hackney had an associated point to make in their Amendment No. 47. It is my recollection, but I have not been able to fortify it from Hansard, since Hansard went to press before we went to bed last night, that when we drew stumps lost night it was on the understanding that my colleagues and I would think about this matter overnight. We have now done so. My opinion basically remains the same—namely, that the fears expressed by noble Lords on this question are not really well founded.

As I said last night, we fully recognise that decisions on minimum acceptable flows will inevitably impinge on all the interests concerned, including land drainage and fisheries. But we feel that these interests are in fact fully safeguarded by subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 19. I also feel that the history of the operation of Section 26 of the Water Act, 1945, shows that my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and his Department have in the past shown full regard for interests other than those of the statutory water undertakers in dealing with the matter of prescribed flows. Finally, very full and constant consultation takes place at present under Section 26 of the Water Act between the two Ministries. On most matters it does seem to me right (speaking as a beginner in these matters of government) to lay a definite and clear responsibility on one Minister, and one Minister alone. It is then up to him to see that if consultation is required, it shall take place. And in matters of this sort, I understand that consultation is axiomatic.

I also informed noble Lords that I thought that in any event Lord De Ramsey's suggested Amendments went a good deal too far, in that many of them would involve both Ministers in processes which were entirely mechanical and procedural matters of really minute detail. It seems to me that this would be a mistake in principle, that it would be time-consuming and that it would in fact be extremely burdensome to potential objectors to proposed statements of minimal flow. I am convinced that these considerations are valid and I still think that the fears of noble Lords on this matter are unfounded. Nevertheless, I recognise, from what has already been said in your Lordships House, that these fears and inhibitions are entertained, and we are anxious to demonstrate clearly that in this Bill we are seeking to establish a system of dealing with our national water affairs which is fair to all the interests concerned. With this in mind, I should like to do what I can to meet the noble Lord and the noble Lords associated with him in this Amendment.

I would draw a clear distinction in this matter between what I would call the decision processes and what I would term the purely mechanical and procedural processes. Where the decision processes are involved, I should like to see whether we could not introduce into the Bill an appeal to both Ministers. But where the purely procedural processes are concerned, then I feel that it would be far better and more practical to leave the arrangements as they stand in the Bill. I understand that it would be quite easy to make this sort of division within the Bill. If noble Lords who axe concerned with this matter feel that it would be helpful, I for one should be very glad to undertake to see whether we can on Report stage introduce an Amendment along these lines.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his statement and fully accept the method that he has proposed for dealing with the principle behind the Amendments. I am sorry if I made rather heavy weather by including all the consequential Amendments involved. I assure the noble Earl that his endeavours to meet this point will be much appreciated by the interests concerned, and that they will be distinctly reassured. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Additional powers of Minister in relation to minimum acceptable flows]:

5.42 p.m.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 68 and 69.

LORD HASTINGS

There are three Amendments on Clause 21, which I can deal with at the same time—Nos. 59, 61 and 62. They are all in the nature of drafting Amendments. Perhaps I had better explain that Clause 21 deals with additional powers of the Minister in relation to minimum acceptable flows. It provides that if the Minister does not approve a statement of minimum acceptable flow submitted to him by a river authority he may require the Water Resources Board to make and submit such a statement. Further, the clause provides for the variation of an approved statement of minimum acceptable flow, whether on the application of a river authority or on the Minister's own initiative after consultation with the Water Resources Board. For these purposes the clause applies procedural provisions (contained in Schedule 6) "with the necessary modifications".

The modifications which are needed to adapt Schedule 6 for the purposes of Clause 21 are somewhat intricate. In the interests of clarity and precision it has been decided to set out in a new Part II Schedule 6 the procedure to be used for purposes of Clause 21. To this end Clause 21 requires to be amended in order to make appropriate reference to a new part (Part III) of Schedule 6. These Amendments make the necessary changes. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 42, leave out from first ("of") to ("with") in tine 44 and insert ("Part III of Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect").(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 10, leave out from first ("of") to second ("with") in line 11 and insert ("Part III of Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 13, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 15.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 67 go together and are in the nature of improvements on drafting. Clause 21 (4) correctly applies to draft statements of minimum acceptable flow being prepared and submitted by the Water Resources Board at the Minister's direction, or being prepared by the Minister himself, those requirements which apply, by virtue of Clause 19, subsections (3) to (5), to a draft statement being prepared in the normal way by a river authority. It also applies Clause 20 (2) dealing with the review of statements. This subsection is not really applicable in the circumstances of Clause 21, but other provisions of Clause 20, suitably modified, are. The Amendments therefore take out the express reference to Clause 20 (2) and introduce a general reference to Clause 20. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 16, leave out ("sections") and insert ("section ").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 16, leave out ("and 20 (2)").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 19, at end insert ("and in section 20 of this Act any reference to a statement approved under section 19 of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to a statement approved under this section.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

General restrictions

23.—

(3)Subject to the provisions of Part X of this Act with respect to the Water Act 1958, the restrictions imposed by this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other enactment contained in any Act passed before the passing of this Act, or in any statutory provision made or issued, whether before or after the passing of this Act, by virtue of such an enactment.

LORD LINDGREN moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: If it is convenient to the two noble Lords in charge of the Bill I think we can take this Amendment and Nos. 77 to 81 together. They are really consequential, and I think this course will facilitate the business. Clause 23 provides that no person is to abstract water from any source or supply without a licence granted by the river authority; and subsection (3), which I seek to remove, applies this restriction to any abstraction authorised by any statutory provision or under any previous Act of Parliament. I propose the deletion of this subsection in order to maintain the existing statutory rights for the abstraction of water.

It is principally the statutory water undertakers who are affected, and water undertakers shave from time to time obtained authority from Parliament and from the Minister to abstract water required in order to fulfil their obligations to the public. In order to fulfil those obligations, vast sums of public money have been expended on waterworks by virtue of the right that they had to abstract. There can be no question, I would suggest, of taking away these statutory rights. Indeed, the Bill recognises the principle that these statutory rights must be dealt with in a special way. But the fact remains that under Clause 23 these rights are abolished and are replaced in later clauses in the Bill by licences of right to be obtained from the river authority. Thus, to continue to operate their present waterworks the water undertakers wild be obliged to obtain a licence from the river authority.

Unfortunately, it is in the nature of licences that they are revocable, and licences under this Bill may be revoked. It is true that the Bill provides that compensation may be paid for the revoking of a licence, but I would suggest that to a water undertaking, with the statutory duty to supply the public in its area of operation, compensation is no substitute for water. Moreover, the licence may not be in the same terms as the provision. For instance, a water undertaking may have obtained from Parliament power for abstraction well in excess of its present requirements. As will readily be understood by your Lordships, this is a common practice for a water undertaker, because there must be a plan for the future and there must be an allowance for growth in the demand over the future years. By virtue of that, waterworks have to be planned years ahead, because very often their construction is phased and spread over many years. Many water undertakers have works well in excess of their present capacity. That, too, is prudent if a water undertaker is to be ready to meet the varying demands of the public and the increases in population, or of industrial requirements in their area of supply.

If their present statutory right of abstraction is to be replaced by a licence which limits them to the existing take, then they will find themselves in the position of having to obtain fresh licences year by year to enable them to work their undertaking to capacity, or even to come up to the capacity for which they were designed. They may even find that future licences will be refused. I do not say that this would happen very often, but it might happen, particularly if the river authority had virtually given away the water that was available to other undertakers. In the case of a Parliamentary Bill and the statutory right, that would be water which, in effect, Parliament had given to the water undertaker.

The public waterworks of the country ought not to be placed in this position. The new machinery of licensing in Clause 23 will also create two classes of abstracter in the future. The existing statutory right is to be replaced by a licence, whether that is a power given to the water undertaking by the Minister or whether by Parliamentary Bill. Yet we learned in the Second Reading debate from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that there is still to be the right of a local authority, or of a statutory water undertaker, to come to Parliament for Parliamentary powers. The noble Earl said that again yesterday during the discussions in Committee. So this is the position we shall have. Under Clause 23 (3) the statutory right of a water undertaker is taken away. That is Ministerial and Parliamentary. And yet if in future we are to have a local authority or a statutory water undertaker coming to Parliament for a Bill and it is granted, then you will have both the licence and the statutory authority under a new Bill.

I would suggest that this Amendment may be considered ruthless by the noble Earl, but I would suggest it is straightforward. It is merely to provide for the continuance of the existing statutory rights which water undertakers have obtained through Parliament or through the Minister, using his powers as a Minister. Before those licences are granted, I would call attention to the fact, as is well known, that they have satisfied either Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee that their request is needed and for the public good, and that is equally true where Ministerial power has been given. By subsection (3) of Clause 23 those rights which have been established of extensive public inquiry, upon which vast sums of money have been spent by the local authority and statutory water undertakers, are to be swept away and replaced by licences. That, I contend, is unfair, and what has been given by Parliament ought not to be taken away in this Act of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, leave out lines 28 to 34.—(Lord Lindgren.)

5.58 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord has moved two major Amendments together, and one or two small consequential Amendments which it is convenient, he says, to consider at the same time. He has done so, if I may say so, in a very moderate manner, because, of course, they make an enormous difference to this Bill, and if they were accepted there would be some rather grave consequences which it is my duty to point out to the Committee. What the noble Lord is asking for, as he admits quite openly, is exemption for everything done by the statutory water undertakers, or to be done by them before the end of the initial period—that is what it really comes to: that they should enjoy the position of the status quo: and that all their present rights and present abstractions should be safeguarded by means of this Amendment, which would leave out of the Bill the clauses which deal with licensing, at any rate up to and including the initial period.

There is one point to which I should like to reply directly and which the noble Lord made. That was about his fears concerning statutory water undertakings which have excess plant which they can use in the future and which, at the moment, they do not require. This is precisely one of the factors which have to be taken into consideration under Clause 34 (3) (e) when the quantity to be granted under these licences is considered. The river authority must take into consideration this excess plant. So I do not think the noble Lord need fear. Excess plant refers to the extent to which excess plant is being provided for future requirements, and that is one of the considerations which has to be taken into account.

I would just tell the noble Lord—I do not know whether he has really thought this out; perhaps he has, but I must go into some detail—what would be the effect on the Bill of accepting this series of Amendments. The need which the Bill sets out to meet is for comprehensive information about the extent of the present use of, and the future demand on, the water resources of England and Wales, and for the comprehensive management of those resources. It will be impossible to achieve these objectives if the statutory water undertakers who make very large abstractions of water for a most important purpose are not brought into the scheme of things. The licensing system has other uses, apart from the actual control of abstraction. The mechanism of the licence of right is an essential part of the fact-finding function to be discharged by the river authorities and the Water Resources Board. It is by means of the applications for these licences that the river authority will establish the extent of their initial commitments which is the essential foundation for the subsequent licensing of new abstractions.

Secondly, it is necessary, indeed essential, for the river authority to establish the amount of the authorised abstractions in their area. As pointed out, I think, by the noble Lord, not all statutory authorisations incorporate a limit as to the quantity to be taken, and it is now proposed, under Clause 34 (3), to impose a limit, and it is indispensable to the management of the national water resources that quantities should be fixed even in these cases and that some supplementary document recording the terms of the settlement must be attached to the existing statutory authorisation.

Thirdly, licences will become common to all abstractions, however authorised, and will in each case state the quantity of water authorised to be taken; and that quantity is an essential factor in the charging scheme. That scheme is to apply to all licensed abstractions, broadly speaking, though with special recognition for the abstracter who has contributed, whether in cash or in kind, to water conservation, and it is to be based on the authorised quantity of water; that is, the quantity the river authority must expect to have to supply if it is required by the abstracter. The licence fee, which is a contribution to the administrative expenses of water conservation, and the charges, will attach to this standard document which is present in all cases—the licence; and it is absolutely essential to have a standard system. It really would be impossible to mess about with this and to have charges associated with varying and variable statutory authorisations. There must be a standard system if the river authority are to be enabled to carry out their duties properly.

Fourthly, it is generally agreed—and in fact it was recognised by the Proud-man Sub-Committee—that compensation water arrangements have in a number of cases been found to be too rigid or onerous. Particularly as progress is made in the regulation of rivers by means of major works constructed for the purpose, the need to adjust and review compensation water arrangements to obviate waste of water will become more pressing. The licensing provision of the Bill includes a straightforward procedure for the variation and revocation of licences, subject to the appropriate safeguards of public notice, right of objection and ministerial decision where the holder of the licence contests the proposal.

The noble Lord referred to the revocation of licences, and I think that what was worrying him was that, although the statutory water undertaker would have a protected right, as at present, the licence could be revoked and the undertaker might find himself worse off than now. That, of course, is almost impossible. It would not happen because river authorities are under a duty to provide sufficient water for a statutory water undertaker, as for everybody else, and especially it is upon them to provide for statutory water undertakers and to make the necessary estimates which will enable them to produce the supplies. As a result of this system, especially when it comes to "reviewing" licences (and "reviewing" is the word to be emphasised, rather than revoking), as the regulation of rivers goes ahead and major works are constructed, the position will be improved considerably from the point of view of compensation water. It may well be, and probably will be, that as a result the statutory water undertakers will find themselves in a better position from the point of view of not having to, provide as much compensation water. That is the more likely result of this system of licensing as it will work out.

Under the Bill the responsibility for the conservation of water resources and for securing their proper use is not merely being confirmed as a task for the Minister. He is now being given powers and an organisation, comprising the Water Resources Board and river authorities, to carry out the positive work of management which his task has always required, and which he was not able to carry out efficiently under the 1945 Act. This task cannot adequately be carried through if a large area of necessary control is to be withheld from the river authorities by excluding it from the licensing system. If comprehensive management of water resources by a single authority in each group of river basins is the aim, then the management powers must be comprehensive and concentrated in that authority.

I hope from what I have said that the noble Lord will see that if statutory water undertakers were to opt out, or were allowed to opt out, from the system of licensing in respect of, at any rate, their present statutory rights it would inevitably weaken the whole organisation, beginning right at the top in the Water Resources Board. The river authorities would still have to issue licences to the other users and they would not have all the information they ought to have from the statutory water undertakers if they were going to be left to abstract without licence. As a result, they might be giving out licences to other users which might damage the position of statutory water undertakers far more than under the present proposals which bring everybody under the licensing system. I hope that the noble Lord will feel convinced by my argument, which we think is absolutely logical and will not react at all unfavourably so far as statutory water undertakings are concerned.

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for the very detailed statement that he has given. It is not easy on a technical subject like this to assimilate quite quickly all the facts that have been given, but I am certain, now that it is on the Record and available, it will be read by those who have responsibility in statutory water undertakings, and no doubt the flaws in his argument, if there are any, will be pointed out by them.

I must say, however—and this is subject to re-reading the statement he has made—that while it is true that the river authority must have information as to the take-out of a statutory water undertaking I should not have thought it necessary to abolish an existing statutory right in order to do that. Water undertakers have extensive administration; they know what they are taking themselves, and they could easily supply the information required by the river authority from time to time, almost from day to day, and could certainly give an estimate of likely users over a given period of time. If that were done, that would satisfy the river board in regard to its knowledge of what water was available to other authorities. I must admit—again pending reading what the noble Lord has said—that I do not like the idea of one Act of Parliament taking away a privilege or a right given in a previous Act of Parliament when that former Act has gone through the labourious Committee stage and the rest of it in. both Houses of Parliament. Where a case has been proved I do not think we should lightly take it away. I think it is true, too, that river authorities are responsible bodies and they would not lightly undermine the statutory duty of a water undertaking.

The noble Lord did not deal with one point, and that is this. There is still the right to go to Parliament for the promotion of a Bill. If din fact you are going to have an authority come along to promote a Bill in order to get a right to take water from a river authority, why should you then abolish a right given by Parliament in years gone by? There will be two groups of people, one which has a right of abstraction by virtue of licence given by the authority, although it previously had the right from Parliament, and again in the later stage a local authority or statutory water undertaking which has derived a right of abstraction by Parliamentary Bill and not got a licence. Why cannot all the abstraction rights by Statute remain in the Bill? If the noble Lord could give a short answer to that it would help me.

LORD HASTINGS

I will do my best. I am sorry I did not deal with that particular point. First of all, to go back to the noble Lord's previous argument, he was not altogether convinced by what I said in respect of information being available, and he asks why should rights existing hitherto be taken away? I think the short answer is this. We are trying to build a national water policy and we feel that the abrogation of certain rights is going to be for the good of all concerned including those who have statutory rights at the moment. If statutory water undertakers were not to have licences at all their future sources of supply might be very much endangered. That is the answer on that point.

In respect of the promotion of a Bill, I am not quite sure that I can give the answer the noble Lord wants. But, briefly, I think the situation is that, although promotion of Private Bills will still be in order, that cannot be done before whoever is applying, and in particular statutory water undertakers, has succeeded in getting the licence from the river authorities. Then it is a question of the construction of works. They apply to the Minister for that, and at that stage it could be that they would prefer to promote a Private Bill, although we believe that will very seldom, if ever, be necessary. I think that is the procedure in the future. I am not quite sure if that is precisely the point the noble Lord is asking, but I think that is the best I can do at the moment.

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but I am rather frightened by what he said in the last phrase. In regard to the expensive works of conservation which water undertakers have had to undertake in the past, and which, having looked at this Bill, they might reasonably have thought they would be saved from in the future, as the work of conservation is to be taken over by river authorities, it is likely that in certain circumstances the water undertaker will still have to do that work and pay for it. Therefore, there is all the more reason why we should look closely later on when owe come to the question of charges. I do not want to delay proceedings, and in view of what the noble Lord has said I will withdraw the Amendment on the understanding—I make it quite plain—that we shall read what he has said (which was a very detailed statement, very carefully prepared, for which we are very grateful) and if we can see any defect in it I reserve the right to come back on Report stage with a further Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24:

Exceptions from general restrictions

24.—

(2) The restriction imposed by subsection (1) of the last preceding section does not apply to any abstraction from an inland water by an occupier of land contiguous to that water at the place where the abstraction is effected, in so far as the water—

1. (a) is abstracted for use on a holding consisting of that land with or without other land held therewith, and
2. (b) is abstracted for use on that holding for either or both of the following purposes. that is to say, the domestic purposes of the occupier's household and agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation:

Provided that,…

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), after "abstraction" to insert: "during any one year". The noble Viscount said: Clause 23 has laid down a general prohibition on anyone abstracting water without a licence, and Clause 24 now starts the series of exceptions to that general rule. It starts off with what is a very sensible exception, if I understand it rightly; that is to say, so as not to clutter the machinery up, it excepts abstractions of very small quantities of water. The only thing that worries me about this, unless my reading of the English is very seriously astray, is that subsection (1) can be interpreted so as to allow anybody to extract up to 1,000 gallons of water after this Bill becomes law and thereafter he can never do it again, unless it is an excepted abstraction under one or other of the later provisions. What I imagine the subsection is meant to allow is any number of small abstractions so long as they are not a continuous operation or series of operations. I wonder whether the Amendment I have suggested would be a clarification. Alternatively one could say: The restriction imposed by subsection (1) of the last preceding section does not apply to any abstraction of a quantity of water not exceeding one thousand gallons. This seems to make better sense of the intention of this subsection. I should be very glad to hear what one of the three noble Lords on the Front Bench has to say. I beg to move.

Amendment moved. Page 21, line 36, after ("abstraction") insert ("during any one year").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD HASTINGS

This point which the noble Viscount has brought up is really a question of drafting, and I know from previous experience how interested he is in that particular matter He is quite right in saying what he believes to be the purpose of this subsection as at present drafted. The objective is to exclude minor, isolated abstractions, but at the same time to avoid giving opportunity for evasion of licensing to an abstracter who, taking water regularly but on each occasion taking less than 1,000 gallons, would claim that since each abstraction is of less than 1,000 gallons no licence is required.

The purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment is also somewhat different from what I supposed it to be. I thought he wanted to make the clause more restrictive, but now I gather that he wants to make it less restrictive in case people are allowed to take only their 1,000 gallons once a year. But that is not so. If somebody wishes to abstract 1,000 gallons in one month for one purpose, and then, two or three or four months later, wishes to abstract another 1,000 gallons for another purpose, that will be quite all right according to the intention of the drafting of this subsection But if he were going to do it regularly once a week, or even once a fortnight, he would be prevented from doing so. The idea is certainly not to limit him to only once a year but to stop him abstracting 1,000 gallons once a week. I think it is a drafting point, and of course I will refer it back to those who know best, but that is the meaning so far as we understand at the moment.

LORD AIREDALE

I think that in any event there is another small drafting point concerned with this subsection, because it seems to me that, as drafted, it just does not make grammatical English. Surely the second word "of" in line 38 ought to be "to" because it attaches to the word "apply". As at present drafted, it reads apply … of a series of operations". Surely what is intended is apply to a series of operations". I will not trouble the noble Lord to reply to this point now, but when this subsection is being redrafted perhaps that will be borne in mind.

LORD HASTINGS

I think the operative word is "part" — form part of a continuous operation or part of a series. We will look into this.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am most grateful to my noble friend, particularly for his exposition of what this subsection is intended to mean. Without setting myself up in any way as a rival to the experts on this subject, I wonder whether he might try reading the second line—namely, that the last preceding section does not apply to the abstraction of any quantity of water … and see whether that does not make it even clearer than it is now. Otherwise, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

Amendment No. 72 is a drafting Amendment and Amendment No. 90 goes with it. It brings Clause 24 (2) and Clause 30 (1) into conformity with Clause 24 (3) (a) and authorises abstraction, under an exemption from licensing or under a licence, "by or on behalf of" as well as simply by "the person entitled to abstract". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 43, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of")—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

6.23 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b): or such other form of irrigation as may from time to time be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the abstraction of water for agricultural purposes—at least, Clause 24 (2), which deals with it, deals with agricultural abstraction except for spray irrigation. Spray irrigation is defined in Clause 117. One of the main proposals is to make spray irrigation the subject of licensing schemes in the Bin and, as we heard on Second Reading, spray irrigation can use up large quantities of water. Under Clause 24 (2) as drafted, only spray irrigation as defined in Clause 117 will require a licence. We all know that one problem arising from the passing of Acts of Parliament is that experts immediately start to look for ways in which they can get round them. There is a fear that engineering experts, clever as they are, may see a way to advise agricultural interests how they can get round the limitation and the requirement of a licence as defined in the clause. The purpose of this Amendment is to try to block up the hole, and to try to make it quite definite that all schemes of irrigation which require large amounts of water fall within the clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 4, after ("irrigation") insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has made out a cogent case for a wider power to be included in this clause so that the abstraction of water for irrigation purposes, in addition to spray irrigation, may be controlled. We are aware that in certain areas of the country it is at any rate conceivable that the imposition of control upon spray irrigation only would in fact stimulate the use of other types of irrigation. I must say that our technical advice to date has indicated that there is not too strong a possibility of this happening. The advice given to Ministers about the growing demand for water has hitherto concentrated, so far as irrigation is concerned, upon water taken for spray irrigation. Here demand is rising quickly, and potential demand in a dry season is very large indeed. On the other hand, I agree with the noble Lord that the contingency that he has mentioned should be considered. The implication of the Amendment is that other techniques may increase the consumption of water on a scale such as to necessitate their being taken into consideration in the same way as spray irrigation. It can hardly be disputed—indeed, I should not wish to dispute—that as a measure of precaution the Amendment has clear merit. On the other hand, we do not subscribe to the view that the comparative flexibility and ease of operation of spray irrigation methods will be abandoned in favour of other irrigation methods.

While the Government are sympathetic to the point of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, there are three points which must be further examined: first, that any regulations affecting agricultural matter of this kind ought to be considered jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Housing, rather than by the Ministry of Housing alone, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands. Secondly, the provisions of Clause 44—that is to say, special provision for spray irrigation —will need careful study in relation to the proposed Amendment. Thirdly, the exemption from charge of water authorised to be taken from underground for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation (that is to say, in Clause 58 (4)) would also require to be qualified.

With this qualification in mind the Government are happy to consider the point raised in the Amendment; and I hope that, in view of that undertaking, the noble Lard will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment as phrased at the moment.

LORD LINDGREN

I certainly should not want to delay the proceedings when the noble Lord has been so forthcoming. But lie was not quite forthcoming enough. I did not quite gather from his statement that there was the possibility of the inclusion of an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. Is it clear from his statement that no Amendment will be moved later in the Bill, or is it that the Department are looking at it all the time?

LORD ST. OSWALD

I am sorry. The implication is, that now that our attention has been drawn to this we will consider framing an Amendment. But that indication of course does not contain any promise.

LORD LINDGREN

I fully appreciate that and, having been in the noble Lord's position in another place, I know how difficult it is to give an undertaking in the circumstances. But in view of the noble Lord's statement I willingly withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ST. OSWALD moved, in subsection (4), after "where" to insert: either or both of the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

1. (a) that the transfer is effected in the course of, or results from, the carrying out by a river authority or other drainage authority (within the meaning of the Land Drainage Act 1930) of any land drainage operations, and
2. (b) that"

The noble Lord said: Under Clause 23, abstractions of water will, subject to certain exceptions, be controlled by licences. The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt from control land drainage operations which have to be undertaken by drainage authorities in the normal course of their work. I am sure the House would agree that it is highly desirable that such important functions should continue unhampered by any control designed for another purpose. Without the Amendment certain land drainage operations would be caught by the definition of "abstraction" in Clause 117. On occasion, drainage authorities have, in connection with their land drainage works, to remove water from one source of supply and transfer it to another source of supply. This arises where water is pumped from one watercourse to effect its discharge through another. This arises particularly Where water is pumped from an artificial channel in the Fens, for instance, for the purpose of transferring water Into a river channel, whence it flows to the sea.

Noble Lords will have observed that the subsection already excludes transfers from one inland water to another where the water is transferred by flowing along a navigable waterway. The Government's Amendment now recasts the subsection so that abstraction licences will not be required for transfers of water effected by a river or other drainage authority for the purpose of land drainage operations. The subsection will continue to exempt other transfers via navigable waterways. I hope your Lordships will agree that to require abstraction licences to be obtained for either of these categories of operation would present serious practicable differences, and could hinder land drainage without bringing the corresponding benefits to river authorities in the execution of their water conservation duties. I therefore hope that this Government Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 27, after ("where") insert the said words.—(Lord St. Oswald.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DE RAMSEY

If I have correctly understood the last Government Amendment, I think it covers the point of my Amendment No. 75. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head, so I take it that it does. Therefore, I do not move the Amendment.

LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of his intention to move in subsection (6) (b) to leave out from "abstracting" to end of line 42 and insert: any such water on the abstraction of water from any other source of supply in the same river authority area or on the flow, level or volume of water in any such source of supply.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not in fact going to be moved. The general aim was to bring the provisions in Clause 24 (6) (b) into line with Clause 18 (1) (b), but, on further consideration, the Amendment in its present form is not quite right and we reserve our decision. In other words, we may wish to introduce it on Report stage.

On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HAWKE

There are two small points arising on this clause to which I should like an answer. They have been suggested to me by the Legal Department of the Church Commissioners, who are a trifle worried on the subject. Under Clause 23 (1) no person shall abstract water … except in pursuance of a licence". Then in Clause 24 we find that the restriction does not apply to water used for, the domestic purposes of an occupier's household. There is at least one Bishop's Palace which has been in the habit of extracting water from a well for the purpose of the Bishop's household, and which, in addition, connects by pipe to a cottage in which the Bishop's chauffeur resides. We want to make quite certain that the chauffeur will not require a special licence in order to continue his supply of water from the Bishop's supply.

The second point is this—I do not know whether this is a hypothetical case I should think it probably is not. This involves ten farms which are drawing through one farm a supply from a river. If those ten farms are sold to their sitting tenants, what is the position of the nine tenants who are not in a position to control the supply? Do they get a licence as of right to take the water which they have been getting through the one, as it were, master tenant?

LORD HASTINGS

I was not quite clear as to how these gentlemen had been obtaining their water.

LORD HAWKE

One farmer supplying from his supply the other nine farmers. Suppose the Church Commissioners were to sell these ten farms to the sitting tenants, what would be the position of the tenants in the future as regards their water supply?

The third point is a very small one which I expect arises from my ignorance. Clause 24 (1) says: "not exceeding one thousand gallons". Is that one thousand gallons over any particular period? The answer may have been given earlier, but I regret that I was not able to be here. I am sorry I was not able to give notice of these questions, but if the noble Lord cannot give the answer off hand perhaps he could let me know the answer, which would certainly meet the case.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

In order that my noble friend should have a moment to consider Lord Hawke's points, I should like to raise one other point on the "Clause stand pant" Question. It seems to me that under the provisions of subsection (2) you can get water without a licence in two circumstances: one for your household, and the other for agriculture (other than spray irrigation)—that is, in the case of a person who draws water and who occupies land contiguous to an inland water which is defined as being a stream or river in the interpretation clause of this Bill. That person, whether the water is for his household purposes or for agriculture, can get it without a licence. But under subsection (3), if a person draws his water not from inland water, but for instance from a well or some such method underground, then he can get water without a licence only for household purposes, and not for agriculture. I wonder why this distinction has been made in the Bill. It seems to me a rather futile distinction to make: that a farmer can draw water from a stream that flows through his land, but cannot draw water from a well he has dug in it. Can my noble friend explain the distinction which has been made?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

When my noble friend comes to reply I hope he will also be able to answer a point which I shall raise now, although I could have raised it on Clause 58. Agriculturists such as watercress farmers draw water from a well because it is, of course, essential that such water should be very pure. I understand that, as agriculturists, they will not get a licence as of right, £5 is what I think they will have to pay, and quantity is not involved as they are agriculturists. I think this is the same point.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

That also raises another point. What does "agricultural" mean, because in most of the Acts that deal with this sort of thing you find that there is a definition of "agriculture" and "agricultural" in the interpretation section? But, unless a later Amendment of mine is accepted in this Bill, there will be no such definition. So people like watercress farmers, and people engaged in the slightly more abstruse varieties of agriculture, including of course horticultural farmers and people like that, will not know whether or not they are allowed to take free water from an inland waterway. I think the position is very vague as the Bill is at present drafted.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

We must be very careful of what we say here. I do not want to alarm any section of the industry, and, from private investigations I have made, I believe there is no need for watercress farmers to be at all alarmed. Perhaps this has been raised in the wrong place. It would be a pity if publicity gave rise to unnecessary alarm. I notice that the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will probably have to reply on watercress, is no longer here, but perhaps this matter can be dealt with very tactfully, as I am sure it will be.

LORD HASTINGS

If there are no other points of extraordinary interest I will do my best to reply. First of all, in answer to the noble Lord. Lord Hawke, about the Bishop's chauffeur, I would say that he can sleep in peace, because really I think the noble Lord will find that both the Bishop and the chauffeur are looked after in Clause 24 (3), if the Bishop is using a well from which he is allowed to abstract water by or on behalf of an individual. Anyhow, the answer is, Yes. In respect of the tenants, I am afraid I cannot give a direct answer to that. The noble Lord did not give me notice of this rather abstruse point, and we will consider this case, although I can hardly believe that it is the intention to deprive anybody of the water which they require for domestic purposes.

In respect of the major point which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross brought up, and of which he kindly gave me notice, it does on the face of things seem rather peculiar that agriculture should have been left out of the exceptions for abstraction without licence, in respect of drawing water from underground strata. But the reason for this is that the drawing of water from underground strata can appreciably affect the level of wells which are required for water for domestic use. If they were to be drawn on indiscriminately for agricultural uses, then the protected rights for drawing on wells for domestic uses might be endangered. That is the reason why they are excluded. But if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 58 (4), he will see there that abstractions of underground water for agricultural uses other than spray irrigation are, however, exempted from charge. So that the main difference is that these abstractions from underground strata for agriculture will need a licence, but they will still not pay a charge. That is the point. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having brought the point up, because it is an interesting and important one.

In respect of the noble Earl's watercress growers, I understand that nowadays they are very dependent on the purity of the water they use, although I was happy enough to pick watercress from the streams when I was a child without coming to any great harm. Apparently that is not allowed nowadays. But I am afraid I cannot give a direct answer about the watercress growers, and when he returns I will ask my noble friend if he can find out about it.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

With great respect to the noble Lord, I think he has given the answer. He has confirmed that Clause 58 (4) will cover underground water for an agricultural use, and that there will be no charge. I am sure my watercress people are going to sleep as soundly as the Bishop's chauffeur.

LORD HAWKE

I thank my noble friend for his reply, and as, presumably, he will be communicating with me on the subject of the tenants, I wonder whether he could at the same time include something about the chauffeur, because some people can sleep in conditions where other people cannot. Perhaps, at the same time, he will consider the effect should the Bishop be able to persuade his wife or his daughter to act as his chauffeur. If he were possibly to let that cottage, would the tenant still be able to sleep in peace?

LORD HASTINGS

I will send the noble Lord some sleeping pills.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Could my noble friend say what the word "agricultural" includes? Does it include horticulture?

LORD ST. OSWALD

Certainly, yes. I can assure my noble friend that "agriculture" includes horticulture.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26:

Protected rights to abstract water

26.—(1) For the purposes of the following provisions of this Part of this Act— (b) a person who is in a position to abstract water in such circumstances that, by virtue of section 24 (2) or section 24 (3) of this Act, the restriction imposed by section 23 (1) of this Act does not apply thereto shall be taken to have a right to abstract water to the extent specified in section 24 (2), 24 (3) (a) or 24 (3) (b) of this Act, as the case may be; and "protected right under this Act" means such a right as a person is taken to have by virtue of this subsection, and any reference to the person entitled to such a right shall be construed accordingly.

6.47 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) Nothing in this section shall be in derogation of the rights vested in any person in respect of any inland water by virtue of his being a riparian owner.

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to take this Amendment together with Nos. 85 and 91 which are on the same point. These three Amendments are designed to preserve the existing nights of property in a riparian owner, to take the water in the river flowing past his land undiminished in quantity. I am advised that Clause 31 abrogates the right of a riparian owner to receive the water of the river passing his land substantially undiminished in volume. Its effect is exactly the same as that of the clause originally proposed in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, and eventually struck out, abrogating the night of riparian owners to receive the river water free from pollution.

One of the main grounds for preserving the Common Law right to the natural purity of water was that it was a valuable right of property which ought not to toe confiscated without compensation. The right to the natural volume of water in the stream is essentially similar and equally valuable, and is probably inseparable in practice from the right to clean water, since where polluting effluents are discharged into a stream the overall quality of the water depends on the volume of clean diluting water available. It has been found practicable to allow the Common Law to exist concurrently with the Statute Law in relation to pollution, and there seems no reason why the Common Law should not exist concurrently with Statute Law in relation to abstraction.

This absence of the right to compensation and the abolition of the right to an injunction under the Common Law, is of importance to industry. At present, if the volume of clean diluting water is reduced they can obtain an injunction to restrain the abstraction, or if it is done under statutory powers—for instance, under the Water Act, 1945—they can obtain compensation to cover themselves against the increased cost of treating their effluent so that it can be discharged to the reduced volume of water without causing pollution. If the Bill becomes law in its present form, such a polluter would neither be able to restrain the abstraction, nor, except in the case of an abstraction by a water board, be able to recover from anyone the cost of the extra effluent treatment plant.

It is vital to remember that, under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961, the terms of a licence to discharge an effluent cannot be varied at short notice, even though the increased abstraction of clean water, and in particular the uncontrollable increase which will arise under Clauses 27 and 33 of this Bill, may create pollution in the river. I am informed that there is no specific direction in this Bill requiring, or even enabling, a river authority to balance abstraction against pollution, or to limit abstraction so that it does not cause or increase pollution.

It has been argued that, in the case of abstraction, the Common Law right should be taken away because it has not been exercised effectively in the past. That was the principal argument in favour of the abolition of the Common Law relating to pollution; and in 1951 that was emphatically overruled by Parliament. In the case of water abstraction, the cases that have come before the courts in recent years have been few, though no fewer than the pollution cases tried in the years prior to 1948. There have been injunctions granted during the last few years; but I feel that the main reason why relatively few cases have come into court is that there has been a far wider recognition of the fact that water abstraction is unlawful. And in nearly every case the abstracter is advised, as soon as he consults his lawyer, that he is acting unlawfully and should desist. In general, the unlawful abstracter is a small man who cannot afford to fight a High Court action with no chance of success, unlike the polluters, who are often powerful industrial concerns or local authorities to whom the expense of defending such an action is not so important.

I feel myself that these Amendments probably go too far, and I am doubtful whether the noble Earl will be able to accept them in this exact form, but I think there is a point of substance here that he should consider. There are valuable rights which may be seriously damaged, or even completely taken away, and there is no right either to an injunction or, as I am advised, to compensation. I feel that there may well be cases where a serious injustice could be done. As I say, I think there is a point of substance here, and I do hope the noble Earl will be able to give it consideration.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

6.54 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to my noble friend, first, for discussing these three Amendments together, because I think they are, as he said, clearly linked; and also for the clear and moderate way in which he has taken us through this rather complicated matter. I am afraid that I may not be able to follow him in clarity. May I say at once, on his first Amendment, No. 82, that I do not think he need have any fears about Clause 26. Clause 26 is, in effect, doing no more than provide a useful form of words for application in subsequent clauses of the Bill. It is what is done later in the Bill that may worry him. I can assure my noble friend that Clause 26, in itself, does not have any substantive effect on the Common Law rights of riparian owners—which, as I understand it, it is the purpose of this series of Amendments to defend. I should like, since I think this is the most relevant context in which to consider this, to direct the Committee's attention mainly to Amendment No. 85, and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I reply at some length to this, as it is a large matter. It is an important aspect, of the Bill, and important interests are undoubtedly affected by this area of the Bill.

Clause 29 specifies the factors to which a river authority are to have regard in dealing with an application for a licence other than a licence of right under the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35; and subsection (2) of the clause provides that an authority shall not grant a licence authorising the abstraction (or, indeed, by virtue of Clause 37 (5), the impounding) of water—and I now quote the words of the clause— so as to derogate from any rights which … are protected rights under this Act". The meaning of those protected rights is explained in Clause 26, on which my noble friend's first Amendment touched. Broadly speaking, it is to protect existing lawful abstracters who are taking water to the full extent permitted to them by the Bill.

My noble friend's principal Amendment, as I understand it, requires a river authority not to grant such a licence so as to derogate from any rights of riparian owners under the Common Law. So far as I know, the most succinct statement of these not uncomplicated Common Law rights is to be found in the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in John Young and Co. v. Bankier Distillery Co., in 1893. That judgment, or the relevant extract, can be found in Appendix II to the Proudman Sub-Committee's Report, on page 38. In his Judgment, Lord Macnaghten stated—and I quote the words of his Judgment: A riparian proprietor is entitled to have the water of the stream, on the banks of which his property lies, flow down as it has been accustomed to flow down to his property, subject to the ordinary use of the flowing water by upper proprietors, and to such further use, if any, on their part in connection with their property as may be reasonable under the circumstances. Every riparian proprietor is thus entitled to the water of his stream, in its natural flow, without sensible diminution or increase and without sensible alteration in its character or quality. Any invasion of this right causing actual damage or calculated to found a claim which may ripen into an adverse right entitles the party injured to the intervention of the court. There is no doubt that the Bill affects these Common Law riparian rights. In certain circumstances, it may indeed diminish them; but to a large extent what it takes away with one hand it gives back with the other.

May I try briefly to summarise the effects as I see them? In the first place, it is true that the riparian owner will certainly require what he has not required in the past, namely, a licence, if he wishes to abstract for any other purpose than those covered in subsection (2) of Clause 24—and those purposes are familiar to the Committee, as we have just been over that ground. To this extent, of course, his freedom of action is fettered. On the other hand, we should be careful not to get this out of proportion. Take, for example, the question of spray irrigation—which has been touched upon this afternoon. The Committee will recall that spray irrigation is not exempted under Clause 24 (2), but here I would remind your Lordships of a statement in paragraph 6 of the Proudman Sub-Committee Report which I have just mentioned. As you will see from page 39 of the Sub-Committee's Report, it would seem that no decision concerning spray irrigation has yet been taken by the courts. I do not know whether that is still the present position, but so far as I know it is. However, it seems possible that such use of water could be held to be an unreasonable exercise of the riparian owner's rights, since the amount of water used in this way can be very great indeed; and none finds its way back to the stream in the normal course of events. So it is doubtful whether Clause 24 (2) does, in that respect, diminish the riparian owner's rights. But it is, so far as I know, an open question. I would say that, apart from that, the owner's right to take water to the extent of any exemption from licensing covered by Clause 24 (2) is quite undiminished.

The second consequence is that it is true that, under the Bill, the riparian owner will have no right of action against persons abstracting under or in accordance with the terms of his licence except to the limited extent provided in Clause 54 (5)—the three-year clause. However, his right of action against abstracters claiming to abstract without licence by virtue of their Common Law rights is not affected. The noble Lord may feel that the balance of advantage is being weighted against the riparian owner. I will come to the special question of the impact of this, as I see it, on fisheries and fishery interests, but it is best, perhaps, initially to deal with the whole.

I should like him to consider three further points in connection with the balance of advantage for the riparian owner. The first is that under this Bill the riparian owner will be receiving specific protection, given the obligation on river authorities not to authorise abstraction which would derogate from protected rights under Clause 29 (2). Secondly, I would invite my noble friend to consider abstraction from inland water which will, under this Bill, be authorised by the river authorities only after they have had regard to the minimum acceptable flow for the inland water in question; or, where such flow has not been determined, by regard to the criteria to which they must have regard when fixing minimum acceptable flow. I think that, taken together, those two points are certainly to the advantage of any riparian owner.

The third point seems to follow from the second, and concerns the matter of fisheries. I know that many noble Lords, like many other citizens of this country, are ardent anglers and I should hope that the fishery interests will feel that the Bill, on examination, does not derogate from their legitimate interests. It is certainly not our desire to "dish" the fishermen. I feel that some of the possible fears here may be unfounded, and I should like again in this respect to run over the ground fairly widely. First, in determining matters such as minimum acceptable flow, which is of vital importance to fisheries, there will be no lack of due representation within the river authorities of the fishery interests. That is already provided for in the parts of the Bill we have covered. Again, those interests will be consulted now formally as a result of an Amendment moved earlier when the constitution of the various river authorities is being decided.

Then there is the safeguard of minimum acceptable flow (Clause 19 (5)) to which I have already alluded and the specific need for the river authorities, in fixing minimum acceptable flows to have due regard to meeting the requirements of existing lawful uses of the inland water, whether for agriculture, fishing.

industry or so on. And they must include matters like pollution and the degree of pollution which could be caused, directly or indirectly, by licensing too many abstracters. The fourth safeguard is that where minimum acceptable flows have not been fixed, the flow should be determined in the same way as it would have been if it had been fixed and with regard to the same criteria.

There is also the question of pollution, and what I would emphasise here is that under the Bill as it stands the riparian owner's right of action (I refer, of course, to their Common Law right of action) on grounds of pollution is quite unchanged. What the Bill does is to take away (in view of the introduction of the whole management system) the Common Law right of one riparian owner 40 take action against a licence-holder who may be another riparian owner. It does not (take away his right to take action against a polluter—for example, for putting polluting matter into the river. In general, therefore, while the Common Law rights of a riparian owner are, to some extent, circumscribed by the Bill, I have tried to establish the claim that his interests are at the same time protected by it. Moreover, since the object of this Bill is to secure that water is available for all reasonable needs, many riparian owners will stand to gain by many of its other provisions.

In conclusion, may I just make two further general observations about this whole area of the Bill? In the first place, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that though some of the riparian owner's rights may be affected by this Bill there is nothing particularly novel in that. Let me quote again, from the Appendix to the Proud-man Sub-Committee's Report—paragraph 5 of Appendix II: Riparian rights may be altered by grant or prescription or by or under an Act of Parliament. That has, of course, been done in many cases in the past. For example, the right of statutory water undertakers is in itself an invasion of the riparian owner's rights but there the diminution of flow is balanced by the provision for compensation water. Here the possible diminution of Common Law rights is balanced in the various ways I have tried to lay before your Lordships.

My second point is perhaps more fundamental. I feel that the Amendment ignores (I am very conscious of the moderate way in which it was moved) the real advantages which would accrue of riparian owners. More than that, I feel that the acceptance of this series of Amendments as drafted would strike at the whole conception of comprehensive management and control of water which is fundamental to a rational use of our water resources. If we were to accept this Amendment, we should have no licensing system extending beyond the present patchwork of existing statutory rights enjoyed by water undertakers, the prescriptive rights of industrialists and Common Law rights. There would be very little scope left for a comprehensive licensing system. It would mean that if a river authority were to undertake big works to conserve water, they would have no control at all over where, that water was going in the end. For those reasons, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept these Amendments, certainly as drafted.

Again, I should like to draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 73 of the Proudman Report, which reads: A licence should confer a statutory right to abstract in accordance with the terms of the licence, to the exclusion of civil rights of action against an abstracter in relation to the abstraction. This is in complete contradiction to the principle embodied in my noble friend's series of Amendments. We have attempted to follow the Proudman principle in the Bill, and I think we are right. But, that said, I would add that a certain number of points in what my noble friend said were new to me, especially in the field of pollution legislation, and I should very much like a chance of looking at these points. Again, I would advise your Lordships not to accept the series of Amendments, although, like many noble Lords, I am not without sympathy with at least one of the interests my noble friend had in mind.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am very grateful indeed to the noble Earl for the very full reply which he has given me. It covered a number of complicated points, and I will study them all carefully, with my advisers. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for saying that there are certain points which he will look into again.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I ask the noble Earl to clarify one point which was not clear to me? I understand that the riparian owner's right of action in Common Law against an illegal abstracter remains, but the right of action in Common Law against a licensed abstracter goes. Suppose the licensed abstracter abstracts well in excess of the amount for which he is licensed—say, twice as much—does action lie with the riparian owner against the licensed abstracter?

EARL JELLICOE

I think that in such a case action would certainly lie with the river authority, because the abstraction would be in breach of licence. I am clear about that. I am not clear on the precise answer to the noble Lord's point, and I should not wish to mislead him. I should like to look at it again, if I may.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Who may apply for a licence]:

7.16 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

This is a very simple Amendment. Clause 27 (4) gives anybody negotiating the purchase of land the same right to apply for a licence to abstract as the occupier of the land. If A is the occupier of the land and as a riparian owner has the right to apply for a licence, and B comes along and offers to buy his land, B can obtain a licence as an occupier when negotiating. So far as I understand the Bill, when he has obtained it he can still keep the licence to abstract if negotiations for the sale break down. All that the Amendment proposes is that if the negotiations break down and the purchase does not go through, he will also lose the licence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 44, at end insert— ("Provided that if, in the case of any such person such negotiations as aforesaid are not completed such person shall not be, and shall be deemed never to have been, an occupier of the land in question for the purposes of this section").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

EARL JELLICOE

The purpose of the Amendment, if I have got it right (as I think I have, because my noble friend moved it very clearly), is to provide that if the sort of negotiations envisaged under the clause are not completed, the person concerned should be treated as never having had a right to apply for a licence to abstract. This would seem to be a perfectly obvious, straightforward and sensible Amendment to make, and, when I looked at it, I must confess that that was how it struck me. But there is a difficulty in accepting the Amendment and I think that the position is already covered.

The difficulty is that, having been satisfied as to the bona fides of a person as a prospective buyer of land. a river authority may well and justifiably have granted him the licence. If the licence holder does not enter into occupation of the land in question, I am told that it is not enough to say. as the Amendment does, that he should not be regarded as an occupier of the land. The reason is that the whole structure of the Bill as drafted provides that a person who obtains a licence is. in fact, the legitimate holder of it. Once that licence is granted it must be deemed to be valid until it is revoked either on the application of the licence holder or as a result of action taken by the river authority.

Your Lordships may feel, as I was inclined to feel to begin with, that in the circumstances envisaged by my noble friend we find ourselves in a rather anomalous position. But I do not think we find ourselves in great difficulty in practice. The fact that the would-be purchaser has not entered into occupation means of course that he will have no way of abstracting the water. A licence, therefore, is quite useless to him and it will not, so to speak, be doing any harm. In any event, there are practical safeguards against any particular snags arising from a licence being held in this way by someone who is not in occupation of the land for which it was granted. Your Lordships will remember that a licence involves the payment of an annual fee and of charges based on the quantity of water authorised to be taken. Thus, in the sort of circumstances which we are talking about, these costs would be a clear incentive which would encourage the licence holder to apply for the revocation of the licence. If he does not choose so to apply, the river authority can, of course, take action to revoke the licence itself. I suggest, therefore, that this Amendment is unnecessary, in practice, and although I can very well see why my noble friend moved it, I hope that he may feel inclined to withdraw.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

Before my noble friend has anything further to say, it occurs to me that a simple way out (no doubt I shall be told that it is not at all simple) is that the licence to be granted to the prospective purchaser should be granted in such a way as only to be valid if the purchase is completed in the future. After all, he cannot go there until the purchase is completed, so why not have the licence issued In that way?

EARL JELLICOE

I will take note of my noble friend's suggestion.

LORD HAWKE

Even simpler it would be if the licence were tied to the land, as it is In the Punjab, instead of to the individual.

EARL JELLICOE

I will also take note of this Punjabi suggestion.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to my noble friend. I had thought (that this was a straightforward point, but I see that there are difficulties. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for his suggestion. There is one point that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe made: that if the prospective purchaser did not go through with the purchase he would not be in a position to abstract the water. But one can visualise instances of someone, not actually a riparian owner, but having land some way back, who has some means of access to the river in question, who might get a licence on same small piece of land. Owing to his negotiations for the land, he might get a licence, say, to irrigate several hundred acres, or something like that, whereas he had only a small piece of land. If the negotiations for the 100 acres or so fell through, he would still be left with some little piece of land giving him access and the licence far enough water to irrigate several hundred acres or so which he would not otherwise he able to get. Perhaps my noble friend will consider that point.

EARL JELLICOE

I will certainly consider the point, but, off the cuff, if that situation were to come to the notice of the river authority, again, quite clearly there would be a breach of the licence and I suspect that he would lose the licence for the little bit, as well. However, I will look at it.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Publication of application for licence]:

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "served on" to insert: any local authority or parish council within whose area water would be abstracted in pursuance of the licence and on".

The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will remember that yesterday my noble friend Lord Jellicoe dealt at some length with the provisions that were being made in this Bill to deal with amenity. He drew a distinction between the protection of amenity by the river authority and the other protection which is dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Acts by the local planning authority, and, if I remember rightly, he said that he did not want to get the two muddled up together. Nevertheless, in response to an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chorley, he seemed to be prepared to consider whether or not it might be a good thing that in the case of National Parks, where a licence was applied for to abstract water, the application should go before the National Parks Commission or the joint planning board for the area before it was decided upon by the river authority.

I just want to put before my noble friend, when he is considering that point, the extension of the principle involved which arises out of my Amendment. As the clause is at present drafted, the applicant for a licence to abstract water has to publish in the newspapers the fact that he is going to make the application; and he is also required to serve a notice on any navigation authority which has any function in relation to the inland water in question; and thereafter, when this has been done, the river authority can determine the application one way or the other.

The moment is fast arriving when some local authorities of a rural district nature, perhaps, or parish councils, are going to have to employ a full-time official to study the newspapers for advertisements of the sort now being proposed in this clause. It is happening more and more frequently that the only way in which the local authority in the lower echelon is going to find out before it is too late what is proposed to be done in its area is by studying piles of newspapers and large numbers of advertisements in each of them. I can imagine that this water licensing provision in the Bill will mean a large increase in the number of advertisements. What I am anxious about is that the lower echelons of local authorities should know in time about the applications for licences which are going to be made to the river authority.

The river authority will have on it representatives of county councils and county borough councils, who are the local planning authority, in the first instance; but under the normal arrangements in a county area the planning powers are not now normally exercised in smaller cases by the county council itself, but are delegated to the rural district council and urban district council, who will not themselves have representatives on the river authority. It is these people, and also the lower levels still, the parish councils, who are really going to know about the effect on amenities of applications for licences on the rivers and streams in their areas. But these are the people who are not going to be able to find out in time unless they read their newspapers.

It is also worth bearing in mind that as I understand it, whereas it will be possible for an aggrieved applicant to go to appeal if his application for a licence is refused, if his application for a licence is granted, then nobody else thereafter may appeal to the Minister to revoke it, except that the river authority may do so on payment of compensation. Therefore, it seems necessary, for the sake of safeguarding amenity, that these lower echelons of local authorities should somehow or other know in time about the applications for licences that are going to take place. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said that this could possibly be done in National Parks. I wonder whether it should not be a more widely spread principle, so that at any rate the formality is gone through and the local authority knows what is going on. Although I am sure this Amendment cannot be accepted as it stands, I hope that at any rate the principle behind it may be considered by Her Majesty's Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 11, after ("on") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross)

LORD ST. OSWALD

The noble Viscount and I are both countrymen, and for that reason when I first read his Amendment I tended to take sides with him. Having looked at the situation more carefully, I now feel, as I shall in fact argue, that the Amendment is unnecessary. The clause already provides that notice of any application to a river authority for a licence to abstract water, other than a licence of right, shall be published at least once in each of two successive weeks in one or more newspapers circulating in the locality in which the intended place of abstraction is situated. My noble friend has referred to the necessity for reading through piles of newspapers. His experience of parish life may, of course, be different from mine, and I am not going to enter into any feuding with him on that sort of experience, but I am very surprised that he should visualise the necessity of having to work through a pile of newspapers if the applicant has placed his announcement sensibly in the local newspaper, which a local authority or parish council will read as a matter of course.

The noble Viscount's Amendment would have the applicant serve notice also on any local authority or parish council within whose area water would be taken in accordance with the licence if granted. He is out to protect the local authority or parish council by insisting upon a direct communication. I submit that this would be an onerous and unnecessary requirement. In a rural area an applicant might, if the Amendment were accepted, have to send notice to a parish council, a rural district council, a county council, and perhaps also a joint planning board, all at once about the same application. This, I think my noble friend in fairness will agree, is very different from what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe agreed was worth looking at—that is to say, the requirement to consult one body, the National Parks Commission, in the case of National Parks.

The local authorities have their proper place in relation to the matters covered by this Bill, but it is in relation to the main issues. When a river authority makes a draft statement of minimum acceptable flows, that is a matter of general interest, not only to those immediately on the river but also, more widely, to those charged with responsibility for the health and general well-being of the district. Accordingly, under the procedure in Schedule 6, the river authority must give notice, when it submits a draft statement for approval, to every local authority whose area comprises any inland water to which the draft statement relates. Similarly, if water conservation works are contemplated for which the river authority desires to obtain compulsory powers by order, the local authority in whose area the works are to be must be served with notice of the application for the order. This is in paragraph 2 of Schedule 7. But when we come to an ordinary licence application we are on different ground. This is the river authority's day-to-day business. In doing its job, the river authority has to look to the minimum acceptable flow which is settled after consideration with any representations which the local authorities may have made. That is right. But the river authority does not need and, I submit, should not have, the local authority as it were "breathing down its neck" all the time it is considering licence applications.

These licences to abstract are licences to take water, and not licences to do works. They do not, in my submission, impinge on the functions of local authorities in such a way as to make it appropriate that those authorities should be singled out for special service of notice in each and every case instead of relying on newspaper advertisements like the rest of those whose statutory functions are not affected by the possible grant of a licence. The noble Viscount referred to planning, and the normal planning procedures are unaffected by this clause. I do not think that this Amendment is necessary and, as I have sought to show, if accepted it would certainly be a burden to the private individual and I hope that my noble friend will not feel compelled to press it.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very grateful to my noble friend for the full answer that he has given to this Amendment. It seems to me that the crux of the matter is whether or not the advertisement system is a sufficient safeguard in these cases. I should like to find out a little more about how it works in practice, and also, of course, to study the answer which my noble friend has given. So, without committing myself to abandoning this point for ever, I should like at this moment to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.37 p.m.

LORD DE RAMSEY moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "authority" to "insert" or internal drainage board ". The noble Lord said: I am on a similar point to that of the noble Viscount. Under Clause 28 (1) (b) it is necessary for a navigation authority to be informed of any abstraction from a water course under its jurisdiction. The object of this Amendment is to make the same obligation necessary where an internal drainage board is concerned, where an application arises to abstract water from one of the main drains for which the internal drainage board is responsible. I should have thought that it was most necessary for the board to know of these applications, since clearly they impinge upon their responsibilities.

If you take a river board area such as the Great Ouse for example, there are no fewer than 89 internal drainage boards, so that if it were left, for instance, to the river authority to make sure that the internal drainage board was informed, there would be considerable scope for one or more to get overlooked. It seemed to me to be one of those simple Amendments to which the noble Earl referred recently, which turned out to be not quite so simple. I hope the same fate will not overtake this Amendment. I beg to move. Page 25, line 12, after ("authority") insert ("or internal drainage board")—(Lord De Ramsey.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, as we should expect, has made out a very good case on behalf of those important bodies, the internal drainage boards. This clause, as he has observed, provides that no licence application will be considered by a river authority unless the application has been advertised in the appropriate newspapers. In addition, a copy of the notice has to be served upon any navigation authority having functions in relation to the inland water concerned. The clause provided for this because of the improvements to navigation and the quantity of the water remaining in the river.

I am sure the Committee will agree that the noble Lord has also made out an equally good case on behalf of the internal drainage boards. There can be no doubt that they are vitally concerned with the effect of any abstractions upon their water courses. The Government are therefore sympathetic to the points made on their behalf and will certainly consider the point raised in the Amendment between now and the Report stage. I hope, upon that undertaking, that the noble Lord and his colleagues will be willing to withdraw their Amendments for the moment.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29:

Determination by river authority of application for licence

29.—

(3) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, the river authority, in dealing with the application, shall have regard to—

(a) any representations in writing relating to the application which are received by them before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2) of the last preceding section, and

(7) Where the application relates to abstracton from underground strata, the river authority shall (without prejudice to the preceding provisions) have regard to the requirements of existing lawful uses of water abstracted from those strata, whether for agriculture, industry, water supply or other purposes.

7.42 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (3), after "application", where it first occurs, to insert: shall consult any statutory water undertakers having the right to abstract water from the source of supply concerned, and".

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to require that in considering an application for a licence to abstract water the river authority shall consult with any statutory water undertakers who abstract from the same source of supply. As I have pointed out on a series of Amendments during the passage of this Bill, the statutory water undertakers abstracting water from rivers and from underground strata may be seriously affected by other abstractions from the same river or from the same underground supply. Clearly, a statutory water undertaking may be affected where there is an abstraction by some other interest upstream. At the present time statutory water undertakers are afforded protection by Common Law, which restricts the amount of water that can be taken by riparian owners up-stream by intake, and also to some extent by Statute Law. Under the new scheme of the Bill the existing legal safeguards will go and riparian owners will be able to obtain licences to enable them to abstract large quantities of water. Therefore I would suggest that it is essential under the new scheme to ensure that a river authority does not give licences for abstraction which will interfere with the source of supply used for public water supply. Public supply must have first priority in these matters. Therefore it seems reasonable to ask that river authorities shall consult with the statutory water undertakers who may be seriously affected by licences granted by the river authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 41, after ("application") insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

I appreciate the noble Lord's concern, but really I do not think there is any need far it. Of course, it is part of the business of the river authorities to make sure that the interests of statutory water undertakers are not prejudiced, and so far as consultation goes I am quite sure that in dealing with applications the statutory water undertakers will avail themselves of the opportunity under the Bill which are as follows. The application in the first place will have been advertised under Clause 28, and the statutory water undertakers will have had an opportunity to make representations to the river authority. Furthermore, the river authority must consider any such representations before deciding the application, and that is set down in Clause 29 (3). Then, the undertakers' rights to abstract from the source of supply will be protected rights, to which Clause 29 (2) applies. The river authority will be aware of any potential demand of the undertakers on the source of supply concerned by virtue of their periodical surveys under Clause 14. These provisions will ensure that the interests of the statutory water undertakers will be fully protected, and there is really no need to make further provision for consultation with them.

Furthermore, I think there is one point I could make—I do not wish to make anything particularly of it. The insertion of a requirement for statutory consultations with the undertakers in this clause would put them apparently in a more favoured position than other users, and I know that in the first day of the Committee stage the noble Lord said that he did not wish to create that impression. In point of fact, general knowledge of each application by all concerned who are interested will be widespread, and there is bound to be general submission, either in support of or in objection against the applications. There will be every opportunity of consultation and consideration of each individual case. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that explanation.

LORD LINDGREN

There is only one point I wish to make arising from the noble Lord's statement. He has quite rightly said that in another context I said that statutory water undertakers would, not want to be put in a more favourable position but I think they ought to be a much more favourable position in so far as supply is concerned. They have the statutory duty to supply, and, as I mentioned before, they can be taken through the courts if, in fact, they should fail to supply. The question of possible interference with their source of supply is a very dangerous thing from the public health point of view, apart from the statutory obligations of the undertaker. But in view of the noble Lord's statement, for which I thank him, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.48 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, after subsection (3) to insert: ( ) Where the application is made by statutory water undertakers, the river authority shall not refuse to grant a licence if the water is available and is required by the applicants for the purpose of meeting their statutory obligations in relation to water supply; and any dispute which may arise between the river authority and the applicants as to whether the water is available, or is required by the applicants for the purpose of meeting their said obligations, shall be settled by the Minister, who in the case of a dispute as to whether the water is available shall consult the Water Resources Board before reaching his decision.

The noble Lord said: The granting of licences for abstraction under Clause 29 is at the discretion of the river authority. Once the new scheme comes into operation statutory water undertakers, in common with all other abstracters, will be required to make application to river authorities for a licence for future abstractions. In my view this fails to recognise the special position of the statutory water undertakers, and this Amendment is designed to put them in the special position which, I have suggested, not only on this Amendment but in reply to the noble Lord on the last Amendment, is commensurate with their duties and obligations to the public. The special position of the water undertakers at law arises from the duties and obligations which Parliament has placed upon them to bring piped supplies to all parts of their area, and to allow the public to take water from their mains for domestic purposes, to connect up with the mains and, of course—their other necessary duty—to pay a water rate.

In addition, the Water Act, 1945, places on statutory water undertakers, an obligation to afford supplies to industry and agriculture provided that their ability to supply for domestic purposes is not prejudiced. Because Parliament has placed a duty on statutory water undertakers it has always recognised their right to obtain the water they require to meet the obligations placed upon them; that is the special right of abstraction given direct by Parliament, or by the Minister, under authority given to him by Parliament. Under the new scheme, the statutory water undertakers will instead be obliged to go to the river authority for a licence, and the river authority are not obliged to give a licence. Thus, the water undertakers may be placed in the unenviable position of being obliged to afford a supply to the public from their mains yet unable to obtain a supply from the river authority in order to charge their mains.

It is true that the Bill provides that the water undertaker in this position may appeal to the Minister, but I suggest that this is not a satisfactory piece of machinery, for the water undertaker will then find that he is in the position of appealing against and endeavouring to upset or reverse a decision already taken by the river authority. A water undertaker requiring water to meet his statutory obligations must be able to get that water from a river authority if that water is available. The Amendment therefore proposes that the river authority shall not refuse to grant a licence to a statutory water undertaker if the water is available for him to take and he requires it to meet his statutory obligations.

The Amendment also provides that if there is a dispute as to whether the water is required by the water undertaker to meet his statutory obligations, the matter is to be determined by the Minister, who has the general overall responsibility for the public water supply of the country. If there is a dispute as to whether or not the water is available in that particular river authority's area, then again that should be settled by the Minister, who, of course, would have to consult with the Water Resources Board, which is to have all the information as to the water resources of the country. This, I suggest, is a relatively simple and straightforward Amendment which would ensure that the public water supplies of the country have the priority which they must have if public health and welfare is to be maintained. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

May I say a brief word in support of this Amendment? I agree with I think pretty well everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said in moving it. I would underline, if I may, the point that although we have had assurances that the river authorities will have due regard to the special position of statutory water undertakers as regards their statutory obligations, here is an opportunity for writing into the Bill clearly and specifically an obligation which would appear on the face of it to be entirely reasonable, in so far as it is limited in the way suggested in the Amendment. It is only if the water is available that the river authority shall be under an obligation to issue a licence sufficient at least to meet the statutory obligations of the statutory water undertaker, and if there is any doubt or dispute as to, the validity of the statutory undertaker's estimate of his requirements that can be referred for decision. This, if I may say so, is a convenient place in which to recognise a very proper right.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said this is a very simple and straightforward Amendment. In fact, it is so simple and straightforward that it puts the whole Bill back to front, or it would have that effect. It is, in fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, in his Second Reading speech suggested, that the river authority ought not to control abstractions by statutory water undertakers but that the river authority should have a right of appeal to the Minister if the use which the statutory undertakings are making of their resources is regarded by the river authorities as prejudicial to the proper use of the river", whereas the proposals in this Bill and the proposals of the Proudman Sub-Committee are that there should be comprehensive and unified management of resources by river authorities subject to a right of appeal by other people, including statutory water undertakers, to the Minister against the decisions of the river authorities on applications for licences. So the noble Lord is wishing to put it the other way round.

Of course, now we are coming up against this question of statutory obligation and the claim of the statutory water undertakers in this respect naturally rests upon their claim that their needs are more important than those of all others and that they must have priority over all other users because of their statutory obligations and the importance of public health. In so far as supplies for human consumption are concerned, this is obviously well founded; in fact, Her Majesty's Government recognise that fact.

Now we are really coming up against a problem. I would ask the noble Lord a few questions. Are persons who abstract by their own works less important than those supplied by undertakings in all cases? I think not. As regards all other users of water, is an industrialist obtaining his supplies from a statutory water undertaking, which happens very frequently, really more important and more deserving of priority than an industrialist who has developed his own supplies, or more important than the Central Electricity Generating Board? Should supplies for garden watering which are obtained from an undertaking be given, greater priority than supplies for spray irrigation? I suggest the argument of the noble Lord in this respect at least is fallacious and cannot be sustained.

Additionally, the Amendment overlooks or ignores the duties placed upon river authorities by the Bill. It will not be a case of a river authority's rationing supplies of limited quantity and ignoring, the valid claims and needs of statutory water undertakings, which is the implication behind the Amendment and the fear in noble Lords' minds. The Amendment ignores the opportunities for co-operation between river authorities and water undertakings. It overlooks the part to be played by the Water Resources Board, and it overlooks that where an abstraction is proposed by a statutory water undertaking and requires the construction of major works requiring the Minister's consent under Section 23 of the Water Act, 1945—this brings me back to what I said in answer to the noble Lord's question about promotion of Private Bills and now he will see I am to a certain extent correcting myself to his advantage—both licence application and works authorisation are likely to be considered from the beginning by the Minister, who will probably call in the application under Clause 38.

Regarding the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, who said that this was a convenient place to put in something to recognise the statutory obligations of the statutory undertakers, I have developed the argument to a certain point. I was proposing to finish it more conveniently in respect of the needs for human consumption under the noble Lord's next Amendment, and if he would like to move that quickly, or even formally, I think that, in the words of the advertisements in the newspapers, he might hear something to his advantage.

LORD LINDGREN

I had not appreciated that the noble Lord would prefer that course. With the permission of the Committee I should like to move the next Amendment formally so that we can have one debate.

LORD HASTINGS

I meant after this Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I understand that we must deal with this Amendment before we go on to the next. That being so, there are one or two points I should make in reply. First of all, the noble Lord puts questions to me. Of course it is not my job to answer the questions; it is his. But it is a fair quip. We all know—at least, I know from my own experience—what happens. When water is short we receive a notice from the water company or local authority saying "No watering of the gardens". Equally it is true, if it comes to a question of public health or industry, that a man cannot live without working, but he can live a little longer without working than he can without water. If it came to the shutting down of a factory that was using excessive water or of doing away with the public supply of water of the area, of course one would have to deal with it. But in view of the promise that the noble Lord is apparently going to make on the next Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LINDGREN

We have put in a lot of unpaid overtime this week, and to me, as a trade unionist, that goes against the grain. But I have received an indication that we shall conclude after this Amendment, and with that in mind, together with the inducement or suggestion of the noble Lord just now, I would beg to move this Amendment. In view of his indication, I will say no more with regard to it.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 30, at end insert— and to any foreseeable future requirements of water from those strata for water supply" —(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for failing in with my suggestion. I only hope that when he hears what I have to say he will be satisfied and not feel that I have bowled a fast ball or anything like that. This Amendment deals with future requirements of water from underground strata. Without going into more verbiage than necessary, I will simply say that until the artificial recharge of underground aquifers is practised—and that can hardly be expected to happen in the early years of the river authorities—the amount of water available for abstraction from underground strata will be a finite quantity dependent on the extent of the aquifer and its natural annual replenishment and annual depletion. In these circumstances, some system of priorities will probably need to be prescribed by river authorities where there is keen competition for underground water. There is, therefore, probably something to be said for emphasising the importance of supplies far human consumption in this particular subsection.

In dealing generally with the problem of the statutory obligation in respect of water for human consumption, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that, if he will withdraw this Amendment, consideration will be given to the possibility of introducing a suitably worded Amendment at a later stage, not necessarily in this clause, to take account of the special importance of securing supplies for domestic purposes and, in particular, the statutory obligations of water undertakers in this respect.

LORD LINDGREN

I think this is a happy note on which to conclude. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his promise and, with the leave of the Committee, I would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JELLICOE

After my noble friend's successful googly I think we have probably reached what might be termed a "natural break". If your Lordships agree, I move that the House do now resume.

Moved, that the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.