WATER RESOURCES BILL

HL Deb 17 December 1962 vol 245 cc905-1012

4.1 p.m.

Committee stage resumed.

EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (6), after "varied" to insert "or revoked". The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment should be linked with that immediately following. I should therefore like to suggest that we take them together. Both Amendments are perfectly straightforward. Clause 39 (3) says that where an appeal is made against the decision of a river authority on an application for a licence, the Minister may deal with the application as if it had been made to him in the first instance. Where the appeal is against a decision of a river authority to grant a licence subject to conditions, the Minister might decide that, if he had been dealing with the application in the first instance, he would have refused a licence altogether. In that event he ought to be able to direct that the licence granted by a river authority be revoked. As subsection (6) of Clause 39 is drafted at present he would not be able to do this. These two Amendments intended to put this right.

Amendment moved—

Page 36, line 18, after ("varied") insert ("or revoked") —(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 21, at end insert ("or to revoke the licence, as the case may be").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 agreed to.

Clause 41 [Revocation or variation on application of holder of licence]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 30, the reference to which we are proposing to leave out, applies in any case in its own right as it stands in the Bill. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to include reference to it here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 3, leave out ("to 30") and insert ("and 29"). —(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42:

Proposal by river authority to revoke or vary licence

42.—(1) Where it appears to a river authority that a licence under this Act granted by the authority should be revoked or varied the authority may formulate proposals for revoking or varying the licence.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), after "by the authority" to insert: (not being a licence held by statutory water undertakers)".

The noble Lord said: Clause 42 deals with the powers of the river authority in respect of revocation or variation of licences which it issues. The Amendment exempts from the provisions licences held by statutory water undertakers. In the past, as has been pointed out on a number of previous Amendments, water undertakers have enjoyed the security of statutory rights for the abstraction of water required for public water supplies. If statutory authorisation is to be replaced in future by licences which are revocable or variable at the instance of the river authority, then statutory water undertakers will have no security for their supplies. The uncertainty of revocable licences, contrasted with the certainty of statutory powers, must in future make water undertakers hesitate before laying out large sums of public money on the construction of waterworks, because the usefulness of waterworks depends fundamentally upon the power to take water. These uncertainties will make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to plan for the future.

The Amendment, by exempting statutory water undertakers' licences from revocation, gives them the certainty which they will require to enable them to construct their works and to plan for the future. I admit that this is an Amendment of special pleading, but I think this is special pleading in a good cause.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 8, after ("authority") insert the said words. —(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

This is the last of a series of Amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, attempting to take statutory water undertakers out of the general system of licensing. In view of my previous explanations the noble Lord agreed to withdraw his earlier Amendments in respect of licences to abstract and licences for impounding works; but he is still hopeful that he might be able to get special treatment in regard to the revocation or variation of licences. I am glad that he accepted my previous explanations. I hope I shall be able to satisfy him on this Amendment.

It is very largely a technical matter. If the best use is to be made of water resources, and if there are to be, as there must be, transfers of water between areas, it may well become necessary to bring about changes in the existing pattern of abstractions; also, if artificial recharge is to be introduced changes in ground water abstractions might be desirable. These activities are just as likely to affect statutory water undertakers as other abstracters, and it would be a serious matter if river authorities were debarred from embarking on a scheme, which might be of great and widespread benefit—perhaps a scheme worked out by the Water Resources Board—because they could not make the necessary changes in a licence held by statutory water undertakers. Another example would be in respect of impounding works. It may be necessary for a river authority to be able to vary the conditions imposed on an impounding of water, principally those relating to the discharge of compensation water. It may be necessary because, with increasing knowledge and understanding of the behaviour of the requirements of a river, a different amount of compensation water or its discharge may be recognised as adequate; or with the construction of additional reservoirs of a river-regulating type in the same basin as a reservoir discharging compensation water, it may be in the interest of good management of water resources to make new or different provision for the quantity and place of discharge of compensation water. These variations will react by no means unfairly or harshly upon statutory water undertakers. In many cases they probably will react greatly to their benefit.

Finally, the noble Lord referred to the lack of security, or the uncertainty, of supplies. But certainly the undertakers can demand protection. First, they will get it now, in view of the new clause we intend to insert referring to the statutory obligations which must be met by the river authorities; and in so far as this particular clause is concerned, the statutory water undertakers are protected because they cam, in the first place, object to the authority's proposals. In subsection (5) of this clause the noble Lord will see that if they exercise that right of objection, a decision on the proposals can be taken only by the Minister. Then, furthermore, under the next clause, Clause 43 (2), if the undertakers insist upon it or ask for it, the Minister himself can reach the decision only after a local inquiry. I should have thought this was pretty good protection all round for the rights of the statutory water undertakers in respect of revocation or variation of licences, apart from which it is technically necessary and likely to be in the interests of the undertakers themselves. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I entirely agree that the undertaking which the noble Lords in charge of the Bill have given in regard to the new clause on statutory obligation does, to a degree, alter the circumstances in which this Amendment was put down. This was put down before that undertaking was given. In view of that, and of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

Subsection (7) of Clause 42 provides that subject to subsections (4) to (6) the river authority may carry out their revocation of a licence, or may vary a licence in the manner which they first proposed or in any other way "not more detrimental to the licence holder". The wording is not altogether satisfactory, and could lead to disputes between the authority and the licence holder as to what is or is not "more detrimental" to the latter. The desired result will be better achieved if the Amendment is made, because if the river authority conclude that the licence ought to be varied otherwise than they first proposed, they will not be able to carry that variation into effect without giving the licence holder due notice and an opportunity to object—in other words, they will have to go through the whole rigmarole and start all over again from the beginning. But if they can get the consent of the licence holder, then that will not be necessary. This Amendment makes provision for the consent to the proposed new variation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 11, leave out from ("or") to end of line 14 and insert ("with the consent of the holder of the licence, may vary it in any other way").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 agreed to.

Clause 44 [Special provisions as to spray irrigation]:

On Question, Whether Clause 44 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HAWKE

This clause deals with a situation in which, owing to drought or through some other cause, spray irrigation has to be cut down—a very natural thing to happen. But what I am not quite clear about, in my ignorance, is whether there are adequate provisions in the Bill to enable other takings of water to be cut down in drought or in natural calamity. Rivers have been known to disappear before now. What is the effect on the licence holders? Are all licence holders reduced pro rata; do they have to be compensated, and so on? This point is probably covered in the Bill, but I have not managed to find it in my searches, because it may be in many different clauses. I wonder if my noble friend can answer that query.

LORD HASTINGS

I am not sure that I can give a direct and firm answer to the noble Lord. My impression is that in emergency the river authority can vary Licences generally but that before doing so they would be obliged to reduce the number of licences for spray irrigation. If there were a national emergency, obviously beyond that point it would be necessary to take further action. But I will confirm that and will let the noble Lord know if I am right. I think I am.

LORD HAWKE

My noble friend may be referring to Clause 34 (3) (d) in which the words "by reason of accident of other emergency" are used. I am not sure how, in that event, the licences would be revoked or reduced. If they are to be revoked or reduced, it appears that the relevant provision must be put into the original licence. Then the question of compensation appears, because if through an act of God there is not enough water for everybody, does compensation have to be paid for those who are short on their licences? Perhaps the noble Lord could deal with that point.

LORD HASTINGS

I think I had better look into this matter. It certainly cannot refer to licences of right, which I think were quoted by the noble Lord. I do not think there is any need to worry about this, but I will let the noble Lord know exactly how it works.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Lord agree that spray irrigation is perhaps one of the most prodigal uses of water in this country?

LORD HASTINGS

That is likely to be increasingly so in the future. It is also one of the most important uses. But it is recognised that in exceptional circumstances, it would have to be the first to reduce the quantity used; and that fact has been accepted by the agricultural industry.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I would make the same point as the noble Lord—namely, that if the quantity were reduced the charge would be reduced also. So far as the irrigator is concerned, it should also be borne in mind that to reduce the charge pro rata would not be compensating him fairly for the loss of the water, because (though this sounds like something an Irishman might say) it is the water that is not there that is the most valuable to the farmer, and justifies his outlay for the equipment.

LORD HASTINGS

I think there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter further when we come to the part of the Bill dealing with charges. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to bring it up again there.

LORD HAWKE

I hope that there is no question of having to compensate farmers in a drought year for water that is not there, because there would be no end to that sort of thing.

LORD HASTINGS

There is a previous provision in the Bill, which we have already passed, allowing for charges to be settled from time to time. I remember that we had a discussion on that, which I think was on an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. I cannot remember the precise information at the moment, but it was made clear that, where there was a variation enforced upon users of spray irrigation, the charges would be based upon that variation and not upon the original licence. I think I am right in saying that.

Clause 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 [Compensation for revocation or variation of licence]:

4.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that no such compensation shall be payable by the river authority if the authority shall satisfy the Minister that they are prepared to grant a licence for an equivalent supply of water from another source. The noble Viscount said: To some degree this is also concerned with the point that the water that is not there is the most valuable. Under Clauses 42 and 43 of this Bill, the river authority, if the Minister allows them, can revoke licences—and that includes, as I understand it, not only licences granted on an application after this Bill becomes law but also licences of right. If they do that, if they revoke or vary any existing licence, they are required by Clause 45 (1) to pay compensation, not only for the sort of work to which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred just now—works by a statutory water undertaker which then become abortive—but also, under subsection (1) (b), for any other loss "which is directly attributable to the revocation or variation." Such loss might be the effect on the value of the factory or some other hereditament because the previous supply of water was no longer available to them. There are many circumstances which might arise.

The point of my Amendment is quite simple. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not take me up on either the drafting of it or some of the technicalities, because I have no doubt that, even if he were to accept the principle, this is not in fact the right way to do it; but I believe that there is something in the principle. After all, the person whose licence is revoked or varied at the instance of the river authority is unlikely to accept such a revocation or variation willingly. What he will want is water rather than money and my Amendment gives the river authority proposing such a step a definite incentive to supply him, if necessary from some other source, with an alternative supply of water rather than be forced to pay him money in compensation. This may have a considerable effect on that sort of industry, for instance, which could very well use non-potable water but which has, up to now, been using water which could be perfectly well drunk by the inhabitants of the area. The licence may be revoked because non-potable water is now going to be used by the statutory water undertaking, whereas the industry would still be perfectly happy if the river authority would give it water from some other source. My Amendment would give the river authority some such incentive to do that. In any case, it seems to me that it would be an excellent idea if they could avoid the necessity of paying compensation at all in most of these cases, because, as I have said, it is the water rather than the money that is wanted. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe will be able to give some consideration to the principle behind this Amendment, even if he does not like the exact scheme which I have put forward. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD LATHAM

Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask whether, under this clause or any other clause, a third party who is injured as a result of the revocation of a licence—not a licence issued to him, but a licence issued to somebody else—will be entitled to compensation?

EARL JELLICOE

I wonder whether I could deal straight away with the question the noble Lord has just asked me? The position is that a third party who considers himself injured has a right to make representations under Clause 29, but I do not think that that includes the right to compensation. He has the right to make representations, which will then be taken into account. I do not think that there is any automatic entitlement to compensation. I should like, however, to check on that particular point.

LORD LATHAM

Would the noble Earl agree that, if that be the case as regards the Bill as it now stands, it is a matter which should be looked into, because a public water undertaking might be seriously injured as a result of the revocation of a licence issued to somebody else?

EARL JELLICOE

I should certainly like to consider this point. May I say straight away that I rather like the idea or the principle behind my noble friend's Amendment as such, more especially since it allowed him the opportunity of introducing the words "hereditament" and "potable". But I think that acceptance would, in fact, involve us in a number of practical problems which at the moment I cannot see my way through. On the face of it, it sounds quite simple and acceptable; that if and when a licence was revoked the river authority should not have to pay compensation if they were able to offer the abstracter an equivalent supply of water "from another source"—which is the phrase used in my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

In similar terms.

EARL JELLICOE

Or in similar terms. The practical difficulty lies in determining what would be an equivalent supply of water. If by that phrase is implied a criterion based on quantity, this clearly would not do, because this would exclude quality, a factor of equal importance. I did not gather from what my noble friend said that this difficulty would necessarily arise, but it might under the wording.

Moreover, even if the abstracter were to be offered an equivalent supply, both in quantity and quality, he might nevertheless be faced with considerable additional expenditure. The new point of abstraction, for example, might well be in quite a different place, or further away from his existing point of abstraction; and this might well involve considerable expenditure in transferring, and possibly altering, his pumping and distribution plant. In fact, the whole operation, even when an equivalent supply was offered, might well involve new plant, for one reason or another.

Therefore, while, as I have said, the idea behind the Amendment is attractive, it would, I think, be extremely difficult to work out in practice. In any event, I am inclined to doubt whether it is necessary to make this change even if, by drafting or in other ways, we could get over the sort of difficulty which I have mentioned. It seems to me that the procedure which we have at present written into the Bill gives us a perfectly reasonable way out. It seems to me that under the Bill as drafted the river authority already have the power, if they wish to withdraw or alter a licence, to inform the licence holder that if he applies for a new licence they will be willing to grant him a new one on certain stated terms—and, of course, it would have to be subject to the consideration of any possible objections from third parties.

If the licence holder accepts that proposition and there are no such objections, then we are, as it were, home and dry; we have already found the alternative solution which I think my noble friend was suggesting. But if the licence holder feels that the conditions offered are more onerous, or if the conditions become more onerous as a result of objections from others, then he is already under the Bill entitled to compensation. All this, as I see it, could quite easily be done under the Bill as it stands, and I should have thought that this would meet the position without involving us in the great practical difficulties which would be involved, I think, in the acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very grateful to my noble friend. I have one supplementary point, which occurred to me when I was listening to his comprehensive reply. I recognise that in a case where the whole thing can be amicably settled and, in his delightful phrase (if I may counter it) we are "home and dry", it would probably be all very well. But I wonder what would happen under subsection (5) of this clause if one of these cases should go to the Lands Tribunal. As a rule there is some specific date on which the compensation will be payable. I should expect that to happen. At any rate the Lands Tribunal must have some sense of finality when it grants compensation. What would it do if there were some possibility that the river authority would be prepared to grant a licence in the future? Would compensation be payable in such circumstances, and would the river authority be allowed to receive it back? I feel that the noble Earl has not covered all the possibilities about this matter, and it might be that circumstances would arise in which a river authority was hardly done by. I should be pleased if he would look at those points again.

EARL JELLICOE

Although I thought I was adequately armoured against my noble friend's Amendment, I do not think I am adequately armoured against his ingenious supplementary. I do not think his theme as it stands would in fact meet the circumstances of the case, but I will certainly look at the supplementary point.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank my noble friend, and I also should like to study what he has said in reply to my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Could I ask one question before we leave this clause? It seems to me it is going to be very difficult to apply for a licence before one has made plans. Therefore I do not see how subsections (2) and (3) will fit together. Could the noble Earl please explain that to me?

EARL JELLICOE

Any approximation which I give, thinking aloud on this, would be inaccurate, and if my noble friend will permit me I promise to look at this point and write to him about it. I should probably get it wrong if I tried on my feet to answer this point.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.

Clause 48:

Right of action against river authority

48.—(1) The duty imposed by section 29 (2) of this Act, or by that subsection as applied by any other provision of this Part of this Act, shall not be enforceable by any criminal proceedings or by prohibition or injunction, but shall be enforceable at the suit of any person entitled to a protected right under this Act, by an action against the river authority for damages for breach of statutory duty.

4.32 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that action taken by a person entitled to a protected right under the Bill for damages for breach of the river authority's statutory duty not to derogate from protected rights is to be against the river authority and the river authority alone. The need for the Amendment is as follows. Where an application is referred to the Minister for determination under Clause 38 or where there is an appeal to him under Clause 39 or Clause 40, the Minister will be under a duty corresponding to that imposed on the river authority by Clause 29 (2). It is not, however, intended that there shall be any right of action against the Minister or against any tribunal under Clause 104 to which an appeal could be referred in respect of breach of that duty. If the decision on an appeal is that a licence be granted or varied it will be the duty of the river authority, on the Minister's direction, to grant or vary the licence. Action for breach of the statutory duty imposed by Clause 29 (2) will be against the river authority alone. But the river authority's safeguard lies in the Minister's power to indemnify the authority, which is to be found in Clause 49. That is the purpose behind this Amendment. It is, I think I can assure you, primarily of a drafting nature and seeking clarification in this respect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved Page 41, line 14, after ("authority") insert ("but not against any other person").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words before "it shall be" and to insert (2) Where under any provision of this Part of this Act a river authority are directed by the Minister to grant or vary a licence—

1. (a) the reference in section 29 (2) of this Act to the time when the application is determined by the river authority shall be construed as a reference to the time when that direction is given;
2. (b) as between the river authority and the Minister, the duty of the river authority to comply with that direction shall (in the case of a conflict of duties) prevail over the duty imposed by the said section 29 (2); but
3. (c) as between the river authority and any other person, the duty to comply with that direction shall not be taken to affect the duty imposed by the said section 29 (2) and shall not constitute a defence in any action for breach of the last-mentioned duty.

(3) In any action brought against a river authority in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to make more explicit the duty of a river authority in a case where a conflict of duties could arise under the Bill. Clause 29 (2), which I mentioned in the context of the last Amendment, stipulates that the river authority shall not grant a licence authorising the abstraction of water so as to derogate from any rights which, at the time when the application is determined by the authority, are protected rights under the Bill. In certain circumstances—where, for example, the Minister has determined or called in an application for a licence or an appeal, or has taken a decision to vary a licence despite the objection of the holder—the river authority will be required by ministerial direction to grant or vary a licence. At this juncture they will be under two conflicting duties—that imposed by Clause 29 (2), which I have mentioned, and that imposed by Clause 95 (5) to comply with any directions received from the Minister. The duties may conflict in the sense, for example, that the river authority could feel certain that if they complied with the direction the abstraction which they were proposing to license would derogate from protected rights.

The effect of the Amendment which I am moving is, in the first place, to adopt Clause 29 (2) to the circumstances in which the river authority are acting under the direction of the Minister. That is why the Amendment substitutes a reference to "the time when that directive is given" for the existing reference to "the time when the application is determined by the river authority". Secondly, if there is a conflict of duties then the duty to comply with the Minister's direction is to prevail over the duty written into Clause 29 (2). Thirdly, as between the river authority and any other person the authority's duty under Clause 29 (2) is to be taken to be quite unaffected by the direction. The duty to comply with the direction is not to be a defence in any action brought for breach of the duty not to derogate from protected rights. I do not think the Amendment introduces any new principle into the Bill. It is merely intended to define the position as accurately and specifically as possible. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD LATHAM

Will the noble Earl agree that it certainly does not introduce any additional clarity!

EARL JELLICOE

I should hope that when the noble Lord has had time to read and digest the statement I have just made, a little light may dawn, but I am not very optimistic—not because of the noble Lord, but because of the opacity in which I have wrapped this subject. But I should hope that when he comes to read Hansard this may become clearer, though I should be the first to agree this is not uncomplicated stuff.

LORD LATHAM

What an opportunity for Her Majesty's judges!

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

I can assure the Committee that this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, leave out line 16 and insert ("which would be within the scope of the licence if granted in accordance with the application").— (Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD HASTINGS

I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Hawke has left the Chamber, because I wanted to take the opportunity of saying a word on my noble friend's question on Clause 44 in respect of spray irrigation and compensation for the loss of the right to use water in emergency. I understand now that it is only spray irrigation which can be reduced in states of emergency; otherwise the principle remains as it is to-day: namely, if there is an emergency of drought, and beyond doing away with spray irrigation temporarily, it is not possible to control people in order of priority; everybody has a right of water in so far as they can get it. That is what would happen to-day under a national emergency.

Under Clause 48, as your Lordships will see from lines 21 to 26 on page 41, river authorities are expressly protected if they are not able to supply water for reasons that are wholly or mainly attributable to exceptional drought, or to an accident or other unforeseen act or event not caused by, and outside the control of, the river authority. This is mainly talking of emergencies, about which my noble friend asked; so there would not be any variation, apart from spray irrigation, in that situation, and there would not be any compensation, either.

Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 49 to 52 agreed to.

Clause 53 [Curtailment of certain protected rights]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make clear that where the clause refers to an occupier as being entitled to abstract water, it means entitled under Common Law and not under the licensing provisions of the Bill or other statutory provisions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45 line 12, at end insert ("and 'entitled' (except in subsection (1) of this section) means entitled apart from this Act or any other statutory provision").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 [Transitional provisions for purposes of Part IV]:

EARL JELLICOE

This, again, is a drafting Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 45 line 34, leave out from beginning to ("as") in line 36 and insert— ("(4) Sections 27 to 29 of this Act shall not have effect with respect to applications made to a river authority under the last preceding subsection, but sections 39 and 40 of this Act shall have effect (with the necessary modifications) in relation to such applications".—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 55 [Licence fees]:

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (1), to leave out other "and to insert less". The noble Lord said: Clause 55 (1) provides that for licences granted there shall be charged a fee of £5 or such other sum as is prescribed by the Minister for the time being. My Amendment deals with a simple point, to which my attention has been drawn by the National Farmers' Union, who feel that this is a matter which should be looked into by the Government. We all know that thousands of farmers have to rely on boreholes and wells for a supply of water for simple agricultural purposes and domestic use in farmhouses. They have had to put down boreholes or install pumping equipment or sink wells, all of which must have cost them money, although in the case of wells it is much more likely that they were put down generations ago and have served these farms for a very long time.

I agree that where farmers draw considerable quantities from boreholes, the river authorities must have some control and that there must be a licence fee charged and charges made for water abstracted, because, under the Bill, the duty of re-charging the aquifers will fall upon the river authorities. But it seems to us to be particularly hard to charge an annual licence fee of £5 on those who use bores or wells for normal farm purposes. I believe that wells of the old type should be entirely exempted from the payment of an annual licence fee. I think that that would be only simple justice. And I think that in the case of farm boreholes used only for normal agricultural purposes, for watering stock and the rest of it, the charge for the licence should be a nominal one.

I think that this £5 annual fee, in some of the circumstances I have mentioned, will be an imposition and will hit the smallholder particularly hard. I know that there is a tendency always to draw in the small farmer in support of a plea of this sort, as one tends to drag in the poor widow in other circumstances, when perhaps much bigger interests may take advantage of her skirts for the purpose. But we think that there is something in this. Perhaps this form of Amendment does not really do the trick, but we think there ought to reside in the local authority the right to decrease the licence fee in the circumstances that I have mentioned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 24, leave out ("other") and insert ("less").—(Lord Champion.)

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I have great sympathy with the words which have just fallen from the noble Lord. I have also been approached by farmers on this subject. It seems to me that when we talk of a well, we want to be more specific. We want to know the bore of the well and the depth. When I first went to live in Norfolk, our well in the chalk was only about 20 feet deep and we had very hard but beautiful water. As recently as 1934 we suddenly found, I suppose because the water level in our part of South Norfolk had dropped, that we had to import somebody to make the well so many feet deeper. Those old-fashioned wells have been badly treated by the modern need for water. I heartily echo what the noble Lord has said, and I think it would be helpful to have some specific definition of what is meant by a reference to these old-fashioned wells. I hope my noble friend will see his way to ease the annoyance of farmers who think that they have to pay £5 for a well that was there during their grandfather's time.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. The words in Clause 55 (1) are. a fee of five pounds or such other sum as is for the time being prescribed… Is this £5 going to be uniform for all kinds of abstracters? For instance, is a fellow with one acre, who perhaps has just the supply he requires and does not need any buildings or extra capital expenditure, going to pay the £5 in the same way as the man with 250 acres who has perhaps the same sort of facilities on a larger scale? I am not sure that I could argue intelligently and successfully that there ought to be a variation between farm and farm, whatever the acreage, because I do not think that would be a practical proposition. However, I should like to know exactly what is meant by these words. Is it intended that the £5 for a licence is to be uniform, covering every kind of extractor, including the small farmers referred to by my noble friend Lord Champion?

LORD ST. OSWALD

If this Amendment as it stands were accepted it would debar the Minister from prescribing a sum greater than £5 as the annual fee for an abstraction licence or a combined impounding and abstraction licence, although it would not affect his power to prescribe a greater fee for a licence to impound water. I should explain that licence fees are not intended to be, and, indeed, cannot be expected to be, a major source of revenue for the water resources accounts of river authorities. Payment of fees can, how ever, reasonably be required in recognition of the fact that protection accorded by the licensing system will not be achieved without some administrative expenditure by river authorities on behalf of the licence holders. The provisions for payment of annual fees will, moreover, provide a very useful means whereby river authorities will obtain an up-to-date picture of the demand for water on the sources of supply in their area. A fee of £5 was not thought to be excessive having regard to the benefits which occur to the holder of a licence. Compared with the cost of abstraction works, which in the case of large undertakings might well run into many thousands of pounds, an annual payment of £5 is indeed fairly small.

I must, however, agree that there is one strong argument against a flat £5 licence fee. As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, this arises in the case of abstractions of water in underground strata, from wells or boreholes, for agricultural uses other than spray irrigation. While the Bill provides that there would be no charge for such abstractions, they would be subject to licensing. The reason for this is that the quantities abstracted, while possibly in small amounts, might in total be large enough to affect other abstractions under licence. In some areas, farmers, many perhaps on small farms, such as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has in mind, are dependent for all or part of their water supply upon wells or boreholes, and no other source of supply or no piped supply is available. It has been represented that it is unreasonable that, having had to incur considerable cost in putting down a well or borehole, and perhaps installing the necessary pumping equipment, they should be required to pay an annual licence fee of £5, more especially when abstracters of water in inland waters (rivers, streams and the like) are not only exempt from licence fees but have no need to install such expensive equipment.

I am glad to be able to give an assurance to the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, that the Government sympathise with the idea of a reduced rate of fee for licences of this particular sort and are considering what Amendment of this clause, if any, is necessary to allow the Minister to prescribe such a reduced fee. But the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and his colleague would go much further and would affect all fees for all abstraction licences. I hope that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will agree that the Minister must be in a position to adjust the fee, whether by increasing or reducing it, in the light of any changes in the value of money or any other circumstances which he may consider to be material. The flexibility afforded by the clause is necessary to secure fairness to both licence holders and river authorities.

I may add that Parliament will have the last word on this question, and any order of the Minister will be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. In view of this explanation and the assurance that we are at work on the point, I hope the noble Lord will not feel like pressing the Amendment.

LORD CHAMPION

I regard the reply of the noble Lord as wholly satisfactory. I knew perfectly that my Amendment was badly worded, but it was worded sufficiently well to enable me to call attention to the point, and that really served my purpose. In the circumstances, and because of the happy nature of the reply I have received, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 agreed to.

Clause 56:

Charging schemes

56.—(1) As soon as practicable after the second appointed day, each river authority shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme (in this Act referred to as a "charging scheme") providing for the levying of charges (in addition to fees charged under the last preceding section) in respect of licences to abstract water granted under this Act.

(2) A charging scheme shall provide that the charges to be levied under the scheme in the case of any licence shall be calculated by reference to the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted from time to time in pursuance of the licence.

4.58 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved to add to subsection (1): and thereafter from time to time as may appear to the river authority to be requisite they may prepare and submit to the Minister a new charging scheme varying the provisions of the charging scheme then in force".

The noble Lord said: Here, again, far the convenience of the Committee, we might take this Amendment with Amendment No. 121D, because the two are really dependent one upon the other. Clause 56 deals with the preparation of a charging scheme by the river authority. Unless I have missed it, there does not appear to be any provision in this clause to enable the initial charging scheme to be altered in the future, even though Clause 56 (5) visualises a variation in charging schemes. I would suggest that there must be some provision for varying the initial charging scheme, and the purpose of the Amendment is to enable the river authority to make proposals to the Minister for a variation in initial charging schemes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 46, line 42, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

EARL JELLICOE

I do not think the noble Lord has missed anything. I entirely agree with him that provision for variation of the charging schemes is necessary. He has put his finger on a gap in the Bill, as drafted, and I am glad to be able to assure him that, if he can agree to withdraw this Amendment now, I will undertake to get an Amendment covering the point drafted between now and the Report stage.

LORD LINDGREN

Like my noble friend Lord Champion, I am delighted that we are making such excellent progress, and I happily agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.0 p.m.

LORD DE RAMSEY moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert instead: (2) A charges scheme shall provide that the charges to be levied under the scheme in the case of any licence shall be calculated with reference to the quantity of water actually abstracted as measured or assessed from time to time in pursuance of the licence.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the difficult matter of charges. If an abstracter did not feel strongly about anything else in the Bill he would be bound to be deeply concerned with the application of this clause. It must provide a fair basis for a charges scheme. Perhaps it does, with one important suggestion to which I shall return. But may I deal first with the point that was raised under Clause 44, which empowers the river authority to reduce the quantity of water authorised to be used for spray irrigation in times of drought? To the farmer this is a distasteful but probably inevitable enactment. I was concerned that the irrigator might have to pay for water which the authority did not allow him to take. But I understand that the words "from time to time" in Clause 56 (2) will enable river authorities to take care of the point, and reduce the charge where, under Clause 44, they have reduced the abstraction. I should be glad if that point could be confirmed.

The exception to which I referred earlier is the position of the irrigator under this clause. It appears to me that he will pay the highest scale of charges under this clause. That is probably right and proper in the circumstances; but it also appears to me that he is going to pay for twice the amount of water that he uses. The clause says that the charges are to be based on the quantity of water "authorised to be extracted" by the licence. That may well suit the industrialist and the water undertaker, who will know perhaps just about how much water they will need to take. But the position of the spray irrigator is different.

Let me give your Lordships an example—that of the farmer growing 100 acres of potatoes. In the driest year he will require 10 million gallons of water; therefore when he asks far a licence he must ask for 10 million gallons. As the Bill is now worded, he will be required to pay for 10 million gallons, although he will not use 10 million gallons, except in the driest year. In a wet year he will not use any at all. Perhaps over a five-year period he will ruse 25 million gallons, an average of 5 million gallons a year; but, as I see it, he will pay for 50 million gallons. This seems wholly inequitable, and for this reason I suggest that the proper remedy is to amend the clause so as to base the charge not on the quantity of water authorised, but on the quantity of water abstracted or assessed as abstracted. This seems to me to be a much fairer way of levying the charges on an irrigator.

It may be objected that the new authorities must know where they stand; that they must know what their revenues will be, and that if they know this only at the end of the season when the water has already been taken, they cannot budget properly. This does not seem to me to be a strong argument, because I believe that the gas and electricity undertakings, and, indeed, the Post Office with regard to telephones, labour under the same difficulties. Again, it may be urged that the new authorities will have to carry out capital works to conserve water, and that as these capital works will benefit the spray irrigator in a dry year, therefore he should pay for them in a wet one. This is a better argument, but my feeling is that for a good many years after this Bill has come into force the vast majority of spray irrigators will be taking only water which is flowing naturally in the river. The argument, about a contribution to capital expenditure in due course does not apply to them. If the Government are disposed to accept my Amendment but consider that some variation may be necessary where capital works have to be carried out, I shall, of course, be prepared to consider such a variation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord De Ramsey.)

LORD CHAMPION

Amendment No. 121 covers precisely the same point, and I imagine that the reply will be on the two together. I have very little to add to the excellent statement of the position given by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. I am glad to be on the same side as the noble Lord in this instance. Not so long ago in this Committee he helped to shoot me down. I forgive him for that, and support his Amendment.

The only thing I wish to add is that I am bound to admit that neither of the Amendments to this subsection is entirely satisfactory for, as framed, they would apply to all water extracters. I believe that the scheme as proposed is the best possible in normal circumstances—and here I do not include spray irrigation in "normal circumstances". I think the scheme is administratively sound. It is simple, and that is a good recommendation for it. It will enable the river authority to calculate the demands they will have to meet, and to prepare their annual budget, which of course will be part of their job. But I think that the Government might try to find some words to cover the points which were raised by the noble Lord—that is, about the spray irrigator who, having been authorised to take perhaps a considerable quantity of water, does not in the average or wet year take any at all, yet under this scheme would have to pay for it. We feel that that would be wholly unfair to him, and I therefore support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I should like to say at the outset that when I first saw this clause and studied it, my own reaction was that it would be more reasonable to make charges for water actually taken rather than charge for the right to use a specific quantity of water. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for being ready to take these two Amendments together, because, as he said, they cover exactly the same point. But having started out, as I said, somewhat on their side, when I considered it further, from the river authority point of view, as well as the abstracter's point of view, it seemed clear to me that the management of water resources could not be carried out effectively on the basis of an uncertain income. It will be the statutory duty of the river authority to take action to make water available to meet all reasonable demands in their area. At the same time, they must not license abstractions in such a way that protective rights will be interfered with. In effect, the river authority must always ensure that there is sufficient water available to enable each abstracter to take the quantity for which he has a licence—that is to say, the authorised amount of water must be provided. Clause 48 (2) makes allowance for exceptional circumstances but this does not alter the general principle. Noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have recognised the importance of the fundamental duties imposed on the river authority. If maximum quantity is to be available and is to be protected by new legal rights it seems to me right that the charge should be related to the guaranteed quantity.

Another important aspect is the financial one. The river authority must have an assurance of a broadly predictable revenue to meet both day-to-day expenditure on administration and capital expenditure on new works that will be expected of them. If charges were related to quantities actually taken, the revenue would be subject to fluctuations and the river authority would be faced with a special difficulty in meeting the duty imposed by Clause 56 (15) to secure that, taking one year with another, the income and expenditure on water resources business are in balance.

The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, suggested that charges on the basis of an authorised quantity will work unfairly for the agricultural irrigator, who will need to obtain a licence for the maximum quantity likely to be required in a dry season, yet who very often, as a result of the vagaries of the English weather, will take a much smaller quantity, or perhaps none at all. This difficulty we recognise, but it is due to the complexity of our weather, which is a fact of life. It is, of course, a fair point, but, as I have recently sought to show, the authorised quantity must be protected, and it seems to me that the quantity of water with which the consumer has obtained a right to be provided should be the basis of the charge. It may happen that in a dry season, when the need is greatest, it will be necessary for the river authority to exercise the right under Clause 44 to reduce the quantity of water available for irrigation. In such circumstances (and this is the question which the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, put to me) the farmer or the abstracter will be entitled to a reduction of any charge for the period in question. That follows from Clause 56 (2), which provides that charges shall be related, as he said, to the quantities authorised to be taken from time to time. And it follows, as he wished me to confirm, that there will be a reduction in charge if the quantity authorised to be taken is reduced.

If the Amendment were carried, the river authorities would be placed in a most difficult position; and in order to protect themselves would be forced to make very high charges for water intended for spray irrigation. That would be most unfortunate for the very people whose welfare the noble Lord has in mind. He implied, I thought, that charges related to the maximum quantities authorised would particularly penalise the very abstracter who wished to be sure of his supplies of water well in advance. Two points seem to me to apply here. First, if a water user wishes to sequestrate (because that is what he is doing) a source of supply very much in advance of actual requirements, it is only just that he should pay for that privilege and for that guarantee—the right to be protected. Second, if conservation works have been built by the user, there will be a case for an agreement under Clause 57 whereby the cost of the works can be taken into account. But the whole system brought in by this Bill is based on forward planning, and a regular and adequate income for water authorities must be assured if the scheme is to work.

To sum up, the purpose of Clause 56 is to lay down general principles about charges and to provide the means whereby conservation activities of the river authorities can be put on a secure footing, while at the same time ensuring that justice is secured as between different categories of abstraction, and for all of them. There will clearly be room for wide variation in charges and in the precise arrangements to be made for fixing them. These are all issues which can be settled in charging schemes. Clause 56 (4) and (5) lay down the principles to be followed. I can give an assurance that the Minister proposes to give guidance to river authorities on the preparation of such schemes, and this guidance will include factors to be taken into account in preparing the charging schemes. There will also, of course, be the opportunity for objections.

The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, invoked the examples of gas and electricity, but he will appreciate that gas and electricity differ from water in that they do not flow away into nothing if they are not used whereas water flows into the sea and cannot be recovered. If, therefore, a river authority have undertaken to supply, and have supplied, water, even if it is not paid for, they cannot recover it. There will be opportunity for objections and for local inquiries into these objections. Provision will be made for the variation of schemes in the light of practical experience, but I would argue that the fundamental reasons for basing charges on the quantity authorised to be taken should be accepted. I believe that in the long term the best interests of irrigation will be served by the adoption of this policy. For the reasons I have given, I cannot advise noble Lords to accept this Amendment, and I hope, in view of the explanation I have tried to give, that the noble Lords will not wish to press either of the Amendments.

5.18 p.m.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

Before we reach a conclusion I should like to ask the noble Lord who has just replied whether subsection (2) as now printed in the Bill would cover the possible variations in charges that he referred to in his speech. Personally, I am not sure that either of the two Amendments down on the Order Paper would achieve that possibility. We are all agreed that the river authority must have the power to make charges comparable with the expenses to which they are put in providing the water, and we know that it will help the river authorities if users are made to appreciate that the river authorities must know what the financial situation is with which they are confronted. What I should like to know is: does Clause 42 (2) or Clause 56 (2) of the Bill as now printed cover the point raised by the noble Lord when he said that, an certain circumstances, where a user no longer consumed or could consume the amount of water that he is supposed to be charged for, as is referred to in Clause 44, the charge would be reduced?

We are told that it is quite proper that in a year of drought the first persons whose supplies would be cut off would be spray irrigators—and I do not think anyone could complain about that. But one could complain if the spray irrigator had to pay as though he had consumed the maximum supplies normally available to him. If the noble Lord could satisfy us that Clause 44 (2) and Clause 56 (2) gives the river authority power to vary the charges in a year of drought, or in any year where the charge should be varied, then perhaps noble Lords would not feel disposed to press the Amendment. On the other hand, if the spray irrigator knows that in any year of drought his supplies can be cut off, and there is power in the Bill for that to be possible, he would not be very happy to become a spray irrigator. What we are seeking is not to scramble the powers of the river authority; I should like to see them perfectly free to do a business deal with all consumers which was fair to the river authority and fair to the consumer. If the noble Lord could satisfy us that the right power is embodied in Clauses 44 and 56 we should take a different view altogether.

LORD WALSTON

May I ask a further question which perhaps the noble Lord can answer at the same time? I understood from what he said that it would be open to the river authority, if they had to cut off the supply for spray irrigation water, to make a reduction in charges for that year to the would-be user. But where the trouble seems to me to arise is not in that particular year. Let us take the case of Lord De Ramsey's potato grower using ten million gallons of water in a drought year. He would be paying over a period of years as if he were using ten million gallons every year, though in fact in most years not being serious drought years he might be using only five million gallons. But he would be prepared to do that as an insurance in case of drought that he would have available ten million gallons. If when the drought year arises he is cut down to five million gallons he will have paid an insurance premium for four years to no effect. It is of little consolation to him that his charge will be reduced only in that fifth year when he really needs it, when he has been paying the preceding four years and has not wanted or used it. That is, I think, the gravest problem in this matter.

Perhaps I may very diffidently put forward a compromise suggestion whereby he may pay a reduced figure, whatever the figure is going to be calculated at, as it were as a standing charge for the right to use a given amount, but with a supplementary gallon-age charge on what he actually uses. There would be a certain security to the river authority for income and a certain recompense to the farmer in that he would pay some of his annual payment only on what he has used.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Replying, first of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, I would, if I may, look at his sliding scale rather more carefully when I have read it in Hansard, and not commit myself now. As to the general burden of his question, I think, in justice, it must be said that when the farmer reckons up how much water he wishes to have authorised for spray irrigation, while taking into account that he may have to over-insure in some years he will also take into account that the river authority clearly cannot provide water which they have not got. It is only then that they can reasonably remit the charge as they are entitled to do under the Bill.

In answer to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, it seemed to me that he was still doubtful about the protection contained in Clause 44 (2) and also Clause 56 (2), which had satisfied the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. In answer, I can tell him that we are satisfied that these provisions give the necessary cover. If he is still doubtful about it, perhaps we could talk privately. If he explains his precise doubts perhaps I can satisfy them. But I am not at the moment able to understand precisely where his doubts lie. If he is asking me whether we are satisfied ourselves, the answer is, Yes, we are satisfied.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

One is bound to accept the noble Lord's statement that the Government are wholly satisfied that this is fair and reasonable. Should it turn out in practice and by experience that the Government are wrong, then they stand to meet the blame; but as they are not likely to be in office when that happens they will have nothing to worry about.

LORD DE RAMSEY

May I thank the noble Lord for his confirmation on the point on Clause 44? I must say that I thought that the noble Lord, as an agriculturist, was not really seized of the position of the irrigator and what he would be faced with under the charges scheme the clause sets out at present. I think one of his main points of disagreement with me was the question of the uncertain income of the authority. That, I feel, could be got round. As the clause stands, at the moment, as I pointed out, the irrigator will pay the highest charge of all when the different factors as set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are taken into account; when, in addition, he may have to pay for twice the quantity at that high charge he will naturally consider that he has been very badly done by. Surely it would be possible to take into account, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, that the irrigator is bound to over-insure against a dry year, and is bound to ask for authorisation of twice the quantity which he would need. If that could be taken into account under either Clause 56 (2) or in the circumstances that have to be taken into consideration in laying down the charges, perhaps the difficulty could be got round and the authority would be then assured of its income in advance.

The second point, as I understood it, was that it is necessary to charge irrigators on the basis of the water which they are authorised to take because there must be some means of keeping demand at a level which the river authority can satisfy having regard to the needs of other consumers. I wonder whether the noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who represents the interests of agriculture in this House, have considered the implications of this intention. If the irrigator is to be authorised to take only part of the water needed in a dry year, when that year comes he will, in theory, have to consider how much of his crop he will irrigate. I say, "in theory", but in practice he could not consider the point at all unless he were a more accurate prophet than the experts in the meteorological office. I have no doubt that if irrigators are to be charged in the way laid down in this clause, the process of irrigation will be discouraged. It will undoubtedly inhibit the process of irrigation, which has considerable economic potentialities. That would be most regrettable. We are bound to do all we can to make farming efficient and economic, and one of the most practical ways of doing this is by means of irrigation. I hope that, perhaps before the Report stage, the noble Lord would give an opportunity for going into the possibilities of devising a fairer means of charging the irrigator, and that I can reserve my position on that understanding and bring it up again, if necessary, on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.31 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (4) (d), after "way" to insert "or the area". The noble Lord said: Where water is conserved by one river authority and supplied to users in the catchment area of another the first authority may wish to charge the licence holders concerned more than the standard charge provided for in their charging scheme. It is doubtful whether the Bill as drafted would permit them to do so. I would suggest that river authorities are likely to regard arrangements for discharging water after use as material in assessing the charge for water abstracted. If the water is to be returned to the authorities' river system substantially unaltered in both quality and quantity, it would be reasonable to charge less than for water which is not returned.

This point is partly covered by Clause 56, which provides that the charges levied by the river authority under a charging scheme shall generally be levied on all persons at the same rates in respect of the same quantity of water authorised to be abstracted in the same relevant circumstances. Subsection (4) defines the circumstances to be taken into account, and paragraph (d) is the one which I seek to amend. To quote again, it reads the way in which the water is to be disposed of after being used for the purposes specified in the licence.

The definition would clearly enable any river authority to distinguish, for instance, between water returned after use direct to a river and water returned indirectly in such a way as to suffer substantial loss through evaporation. However, it might not allow a river authority to distinguish between water returned to their own river system as against that of a neighbouring river authority. The proposed Amendment would make it quite clear that such a distinction could be drawn. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 25, after ("way") insert ("or the area").—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

There are of course, as the noble Lord has said, instances where water abstracted in a particular catchment, perhaps for purposes of the public supply, is returned as effluent to a different catchment. Where this is the case the water abstracted is a net loss to the water resources of the area in which abstraction takes place, and it would not be unreasonable to specify a higher charge for such abstractions than for those which do not result in a net reduction of the water resources. Conversely—this is the way the noble Lord put it, I think—it might be reasonable to charge less for water returned to the same area from which it came than for water which was returned outside that area. Therefore, this Amendment is in principle acceptable to the Government, although we are not quite sure at the moment whether it is really necesary to add these three words. The point may already be covered, but we will look at it again, and if on further consideration we think that this point needs elucidation in the way the noble Lord has suggested, we shall bring forward an Amendment accordingly.

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that concession, which is accepted, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment, the first of two or three paving the way for the main Government Amendment 123N which seeks to delete the existing Clause 78 making provision for vehicle replacement funds, and to substitute a revised clause widening the scope of the replacement fund to cover other mechanically propelled equipment besides vehicles. Therefore, in this case it is necessary to remove the word "vehicle" confining the effect of this clause to vehicle replacement funds only. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 6, leave out ("vehicle").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DE RAMSEY moved to add to the clause: ( ) Every charging scheme shall make provision for securing that no charges shall be levied under the scheme in respect of water authorised to be abstracted from an inland water at periods of high flow (such periods to be defined in the scheme) for the purposes of storage for subsequent spray irrigation.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make use of water during the winter when there is plenty of it and when the irrigator, if he has built his own reservoir, can take it without embarrassing the river authority or other water users at a difficult season of the year. There is a further advantage if the owner builds his own reservoir and does his own conservation work, which saves the river authority themselves not only the cost of doing the work necessary to conserve the equivalent amount of water, but also the odium of acquiring the land, perhaps under compulsion. The irrigator would be saving the taxpayer a considerable outlay, and he would be providing these facilities willingly, which must surely be worth something.

I think the Committee would agree that these are desirable objects; but if they are to be carried out there must be a sufficient inducement. The inducement which I suggest is that those who construct their reservoirs and take the water when there is a surplus, or perhaps even a flood, should get it free. I have no doubt at all that the river authority will benefit as much as the owner, and if the river authority benefit so will other users of water. I know that Clause 58 empowers the authorities to enter into agreements with those who have done conservation works, under which they may provide free water or water at reduced rates; and I believe that the Government may be willing to give a right of appeal where a satisfactory agreement has not been reached. Nevertheless, I think it is important that the right for which I am contending should be given in black and white in the Bill. Obviously, it is not possible for the Bill to lay down the periods at which water may be taken free. That must be done with respect to each river authority, each river authority area, and possibly with respect to each river. That is why in the Amendment I have suggested that the period of high flow should be defined in the scheme.

It may well be that the noble Earl is sympathetic to the intention behind this Amendment, but does not wish to commit himself so far in advance, or to commit the authorities. With respect, I would suggest that over-cautiousness in this matter will inhibit the conservation of water. If the farmer who is going to build his own reservoir does not know whether he is going to be able to conserve the flood free of charge, he will think several times before he lays out the capital and may well decide against it. I agree that there is power under the clause to make a nominal or reduced charge. I suggest that that reduced charge will cause a great deal of indignation and will inhibit the conservation of water by farmers to a far greater extent than the collection of this small amount of water would justify.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord De Ramsey.)

LORD WALSTON

I should like briefly to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. It apparently has the advantage of encouraging irrigation which, from the agricultural point of view, is a good thing. It encourages it in such a way that the strain on water resources when they are at their most strained is not increased, but is in fact somewhat diminished; and it to a minor extent, as the noble Lord said, reduces the strain on the disposal of water at the peak period of drainage problems. Therefore it must surely be in the interests not only of agriculture but of all water users, and also of the drainage authorities, to see that farmers do as much as possible to conserve their water during the peak periods of water flow. It seems not only reasonable but fair to them that no charge should be made for the use of this water which they, in the public service, are taking out of circulation. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on this Amendment.

EARL JELLICOE

I should like to make it clear straight away that we are not unsympathetic to the purpose behind this Amendment. I think I made it clear during our Second Reading debate that, for example, we very much wished to encourage farmers to build their own reservoirs so as to be able to conserve water at times of high flow for use during the dry summer months added that I thought that the provision for differential charging, which a combination of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (4) of Clause 56 would provide for, would in fact encourage this, but I held out little hope to the noble Lord that we should be able to write into the Bill a specific provision—an obligatory provision—for nil charging in these cases. I am afraid I must inform the noble Lord that we are still unable to agree, despite his advocacy and that of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that Clause 56 should specifically state that no charges should be made for water abstracted in this way.

In the first place, we consider that the proposal is open to objection in that it singles out those abstracting for one particular purpose and puts them in a privileged position. Acceptance of the principle embodied in this Amendment would inevitably lead to requests by others to be considered in the same way. If we were to provide for the spray irrigator to be let off scot free when he abstracts at times of high flow, we should find it extremely hard legitimately to refuse similar demands from the industrialist or indeed the water undertaker. My second objection is this. I would agree that at times of flood, water may well be surplus in a river and, if not captured, go to waste; but I am sure that the noble Lords who have argued this Amendment would be the first to agree that the diminution in flow resulting from the sort of farm reservoirs which we are speaking about would in fact hardly be noticed during flood periods. It would be a real "drop in the ocean", as it were, in regard to rivers.

The real difficulty here is that the Amendment, as drafted, is not confined to flood periods. I think it will be extremely difficult to define what we should have in mind here if we were to try to write this sort of specific obligation into the Bill. If we were to confine this sort of statutory obligation for nil charge to times of normal flood level it would, of course, hardly benefit the potential spray irrigator, as the number of cases would be extremely small. But if the ceiling is to be lowered to include periods of high flow, then I should have thought that it would be difficult to define a period of high flow; and, in any case, there would be a real danger of the finances of the river authorities being very seriously jeopardised.

I think that those are at least three very powerful objections to the Amendment as put down by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey. But, having mentioned these objections, I should like again to emphasise that there may well be a strong case for fixing a lower rate of charge for abstraction by farmers in winter, for storage and subsequent use in summer, in other words for abstractions in periods of low flaw. I think there is a strong case for inducement, to use the word used by the noble Lord himself; but I would submit that the provisions of the Bill in fact allow amply for this-not only subsection (4) (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 56, but also Clause 58, which the noble Lord has mentioned.

I would again remind noble Lords that all charging schemes will have to be approved by my right honourable friend, and, as the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, mentioned just now, we are proposing to give guidance to the river authorities on the preparation of their charging schemes. It would certainly be the intention of my right honourable friend to cover this point in any such guidance. Again, I would just mention that all such schemes have to be submitted to the Minister for approval. If he were to feel that a particular scheme in a particular river authority area, one in the Eastern Counties, for example, did not give sufficient encouragement of the sort which noble Lords would like to see given, my right honourable friend could very well refuse to approve it until this had been taken care of. In so doing, he might in certain circumstances very well feel, even if the river authority did not, that there was a case for a total exemption such as is proposed in the noble Lord's Amendment.

But, that said, I feel that I must advise noble Lords that, in my view, it would be wrong to write into the Bill a specific obligation totally exempting one particular case of licensed abstracters. I think it would be wrong completely to tie the hands—to scramble the powers (to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh) of river authorities—in the way proposed; and that it would be better to give river authorities, subject to the safeguards I have mentioned, a certain and reasonable discretion in this matter. In view of what I have said in regard to those safeguards and also in regard to the objections which I see to the Amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press it.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I appreciate the difficulties mentioned by the noble Earl. I would only mention that I think it would be very much easier to lay down the maximum flow above which water can be considered to be flood water, than to arrive at the minimum flow, the obligation for which is on the authority now. I think the noble Earl said that, owing to the short period for which it existed, the flood water as such would be of no benefit to fill the irrigators' reservoirs. He certainly said that it would not materially affect the flow, and there of course he is completely correct. It would scarcely influence it by a matter of so much as an inch. But undoubtedly irrigators could take immediate benefit from a flood, and in a matter of hours they could have their storage against the summer completely filled up.

I had not intended that this should be a privilege only for irrigators, but in fact I considered that it was one of which irrigators, or any other undertaker who had his own reservoir, could take advantage. But if you are extracting direct from the river, it is not possible to take advantage of the circumstances from which the irrigator can benefit. I understand that most of the water undertakers who are extracting and impounding water will be pumping on some 200 days. It would be totally uneconomic to install the equipment necessary to take advantage of a short flood, in order that they could impound the water in a matter of a few days flood. That being so, I was not under the impression that I was asking for a privilege for one section. I appreciate that the noble Lord will be giving guidance to the authorities in this matter, and that he considers there may be justifiable cases for a nil charge. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD LATHAM

Could I ask the noble Earl a question? He stated that the Minister could call in a charges scheme, and that in any case charges schemes have to be approved by the Minister. Is there any provision in the Bill giving an abstracter the right of representation to the Minister, whether on appeal or when the Minister has called in the charges scheme?

EARL JELLICOE

I wonder whether, before I reply to this point, to which I do not think I know the answer, I could just clear up two misconceptions which I think arose between the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and myself. It was certainly my understanding that the Amendment as drafted would single out spray irrigators for a particular privilege in this respect, because of the wording of the Amendment itself, but I quite realise that that may not have been the purpose behind the Amendment. The other point which I wished to clear up was that I was certainly not wishing to imply by what I said that potential spray irrigators would not be able to to take advantage of flood periods by drawing off the amount necessary to fill their reservoirs. Of course, I grant that that can be very easily arranged. All I was seeking to show was that, by so doing, they would not necessarily be conferring any vast benefit on the river or the river authority or those further downstream, in that the amount they would be able to draw off would be minimal compared, of course, to the flood itself. I did not wish to have any other interpretation placed on what I said there.

I am afraid I have given the noble Lord, Lord Latham, this reply twice already, but I would prefer to check, if I may, on this particular point which he has asked me, and if necessary I can write to him about it.

LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

Could I ask the noble Earl whether the phrase which he used, I think in the concluding sentence of his first reply, about giving a certain measure of discretion to the river authorities to vary, was applied solely to this Amendment, or would it also apply to No. 120, the previous one, about spray irrigation? I have great sympathy with the point made by both the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on that, and if the discretion could so apply it would be a great help.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to my noble friend for asking me that, because I think I can assure him that river authorities will have a clear discretion in applying their various charging schemes according to the circumstances of their area. That will obviously apply to their interpretation of the various factors listed in Clause 56 (4). I am also grateful to my noble friend, because it has given me time to check on the point which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, asked me. I think that his point is satisfactorily covered. If he will glance at subsection (1) of Clause 57, he will see that that applies the provisions of Schedule 6 to the charging scheme, and the provisions of Schedule 6 include the right of objection to the Minister in the sort of case which he envisaged.

LORD LATHAM

On the part of the abstracters?

EARL JELLICOE

Yes, indeed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 agreed to.

5.58 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, after Clause 57, to insert the following new clause:

Proposals by licence holders for variation of charging schemes

".—(1) Any statutory water undertakers holding a licence to abstract water granted under this Act, or any twenty or more persons holding such licences, may at any time submit to the Minister proposals for varying a charging scheme for the time being in force.

(2) The provisions of Schedule (Procedure relating to variation of charging schemes at instance of licence holders) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the variation of a charging scheme under this section."

The noble Lord said: Previously we were dealing with an Amendment to Clause 56 on the initial charging scheme, or its variation, by the river board, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, gave such a satisfactory reply that we withdrew the Amendment and the Government are going to look at it later on. The present Amendment is in a way complimentary, because it makes provision for the licence holder to seek a variation of the charging scheme. The Amendment is based on Section 40 of the Water Act, 1945, and the first subsection of that reads: The Minister, on an application made to him by any statutory water undertakers supplying water under a local enactment, or by a local authority within whose county or district any such water undertakers supply water, or by twenty or more persons supplied with water by any such undertakers, may by order make such alteration in the rates and charges which the undertakers are authorised to levy and make as he considers reasonable". In other words, consumers who take water from statutory water undertakers may apply to the Minister for a variation of the water charges levied by statutory water undertakers. There is every reason, I would suggest, why a similar provision should be inserted in the present Bill to enable a licence holder to seek a revision of the charging scheme which authorises a river authority to make charges for water abstraction.

With this Amendment we could take, if it were agreeable, Amendment No. 161A, to insert a new Schedule after Schedule 6. That proposed Schedule, which sets out the procedure to be followed in dealing with proposals for the variation of a charging scheme at the instance of the licence holder, is substantially paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 suitably amended. In other words, the procedure proposed is the same as that proposed for the approval of a charging scheme by the Minister under Clause 57. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 57, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

While the Bill does not at present contain provision whereby charging schemes can be varied, it has been made clear in relation to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 119A that the Government will, at a later stage, introduce an Amendment to empower river authorities to submit proposals for varying their schemes. This new Amendment follows upon that previous one; and, since river authorities will be in the nature of monopoly undertakings, the principle involved in the noble Lord's Amendment seems to Her Majesty's Government a perfectly reasonable one, and we are going to deal with this matter. But, before saying precisely in what way or how, there are two points which arise, and perhaps it might be helpful if the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, and other noble Lords who are interested, would express an opinion upon it.

In the first place, we feel it is probably wrong to enact that "any" statutory water undertakers or "twenty or more" other persons holding abstraction licences should be able to make this application for a revision in charges. We feel that it should be restricted—and this may, in any case, be the intention of the noble Lord—at least to holders of abstraction licences within the area of that particular river authority. The second point is, is the number twenty right? The noble Lord has referred to Section 40 of the Water Act, 1945, but that, of course, is concerned with statutory water undertakings whose domestic or commercial consumers are numbered in thousands. It may well be that twenty is too many. If applications are going to be made to a river authority, there may be a comparatively small farming group or manufacturing group in a particular river authority and ten might appear to be a more appropriate number. I do not know what Members of the Committee think; but, in any case, I suggest that if the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment and his new Schedule, the Government will introduce suitable Amendments to look after this point in the light of further comments noble Lords may make.

LORD LINDGREN

Again, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for that reply. I am becoming almost dizzy with success. One cannot, of course, be wedded to a suggestion put forward as part of an argument in moving an Amendment, and on the basis of the noble Lord's statement I would beg leave to withdraw, assuring him that, provided the Government's Amendment is fair and reasonable (as one has every reason to believe it will be), then we can deal with it on Report stage, when, if we want to vary it, we also shall have an opportunity of putting an Amendment down ourselves. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 [Exemptions from, and reduction of, charges]:

6.6 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, after subsection (3), to insert: ( ) Every charging scheme shall make provision for securing that no charges will be levied under the scheme in respect of water authorised (in whatsoever terms, and whether expressely or by implication) to be abstracted by statutory water undertakers by a statutory provision which was passed, made or issued either—

1. (a) before the end of the initial whether before or after the passing Act, or
2. (b) after the end of that period, pursuance of an application made Minister before the end of that whether before or after the passing Act,

and that the charges to be levied under the scheme in respect of other water authorised to be abstracted by statutory water undertakers shall be at such reduced rates as will take account of—

1. (i) the expenditure which those undertakers or their predecessors have incurred or will incur on any works constructed or to be constructed for the purpose of abstracting the water; and
2. (ii) any other material considerations".

The noble Lord said: Clause 58 enables a river authority to grant exemption from the payment of charges, and allows for the payment of charges at reduced rates. Furthermore, Clause 58 (4) provides that every charging scheme shall make provision to secure that no charges are levied in certain circumstances. This Amendment contains two proposals. The first is that no charge shall be levied for water abstracted by statutory water undertakers under statutory powers granted to them before the coming into operation of the new scheme. Secondly, the Amendment proposes that when the new scheme comes into operation the charges to be levied on statutory water undertakers shall be at reduced rates where money is expended by the statutory water undertakers on building works to enable the water to be abstracted. They are the two points largely within the Amendment.

On the first point, there does not seem to me to be any reason why statutory water undertakers should now begin to pay for water which Parliament has authorised them to take after full inquiry and after all objectors have been satisfied by compensation and otherwise—and, as many Members of the Committee know, that compensation has sometimes been quite heavy. Statutory water undertakers have already incurred the considerable cost of building waterworks and, as I mentioned, of compensating any interests adversely affected. It is difficult to see how any works constructed by a river authority in the future will benefit the existing abstractions by statutory water undertakers. Moreover, the statutory water undertaker is in the position of an agent for the population at large, and abstracts water for the domestic purposes of the inhabitants at large. Nobody has suggested that riparian owners should be obliged to pay for water which they take for their domestic purposes. Nor is there any suggestion that a person who takes water from underground for his own domestic purposes should pay for the water.

By the same argument, water undertakers who have already abstracted water and have paid for the works necessary cannot in fairness now be asked to pay for the water. This would mean that the ratepayer—that is, the payer of the water rate—would pay twice, once for the existing waterworks and again for any new works that may be constructed by the river authority for the benefit of other and new abstracters. Once the new scheme comes into operation, however, the river authority may incur the cost of works necessary to make water available. In the future, therefore, the water undertaker may be relieved of the direct financial responsibility for works, and it will then be right and proper that he should pay his due proportion of the cost of the river authority's works. However, this will not always be the case. The water undertaker would himself continue to build waterworks and to pay for them; and it is necessary to provide for this. Paragraph 44 of the White Paper of April, 1962, reads: Where an abstracter has himself carried out water conservation, e.g. where a water undertaking has built an impounding reservoir from which compensation water is discharged there will be a case for a lower rate of charge and perhaps for no charge at all. Clause 58 does not cover this situation adequately. It is necessary, in the terms of the Amendment, to provide that the charging scheme makes reduced charges for water abstracted by undertakers who have constructed their own works.

As it stands, there is no provision in Clause 56 to enable expenditure of water undertakers on conservation works to be taken into account when the original charging scheme is framed. The water undertakers would, it seems, be debarred from making any representations to ensure that a charging scheme took properly into account their expenditure on conservation works. This means that water undertakers who have carried out conservation work in the terms of paragraph 44 of the White Paper just quoted will have to wait for the charging schemes to be approved by the Minister. Then, and only then, will they be able to ask the river authority to exercise the discretion given by Clause 58 to reduce the charge to be paid by the statutory water undertakers.

Clause 58 recognises the difficulty, because it is provided in Clause 58 (3) that the Minister may give directions to the river authorities on the exercise of their discretion to reduce charges under subsection (1). This is not, however, in my view, a satisfactory piece of machinery. In many cases the financial problems involved in making allowances for expenditure by statutory water undertakers on conservation works will have a significant impact on the charging scheme. These matters ought to be considered when the charging scheme is being evolved. It will never be satisfactory to endeavour to tackle the problem after the charging scheme has been approved. All the Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that these matters are dealt with in the right place which is on the consideration of the charging scheme itself. To sum up, the two proposals in the Amendment are straightforward: first, that the statutory water undertakers should not have to pay for the water they now take, because they have already paid for it; second, that the future charging scheme should take into account money already expended or to be expended by the statutory water undertakers on conservation works. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 47, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Hastings will not accept this Amendment, or at least the first half of it. I do not say that because I lack sympathy for the case of the statutory water undertakers, but because I think the noble Lord has misconceived the case altogether. There is no suggestion, as I understand it, that under the charging scheme the water will have to be paid for a second time. That is not so. What is being paid for is the new functions of the river authorities. The noble Lord will see from Clause 56 (5) (b) that the charges levied are to cover only that amount required for balancing the water resources account; and the water resources account is dealt with in Clause 76. As may be seen from subsection (2) of that clause the money from the charging scheme will be only part of the financial resources going into that fund and from which the river authorities will be able to draw money to pay for the conservation schemes which this Bill, by its nature, is laying upon them. I do not think, therefore, the noble Lord is right in saying that the statutory water undertaker will be paying for the water twice. What he will be doing will be to take his share in the cost of this very necessary work, together with the other people who will have to pay for it.

The main reason that I object to the first part of the Amendment is that if it were to be successful, there would be few people left in the field to carry the burden of this charging scheme. As I understand it, agriculture is out; the domestic user is out. Now the noble Lord suggests that all nine existing statutory water undertakers, so far as the present sources are concerned, should be out. The result would be that the whole charge, so far as future sources are concerned, would fall on the statutory water undertakers and on industry, with, I suppose, a few other smaller contributors.

If the noble Lord complains about the existing sources of statutory water undertakers, I would ask: what about the existing sources used by industry?—and they are very large indeed. It has been felt in many places in the industrial world that it is unfair that an industry which has paid possibly large sums for water to which they have every Common Law right, whether as riparian owners or because the water comes from underground and there are no other claims on it, should have this taken away from them; that their rights should be lost and that they should have to pay a charge instead. I do not think this is so. I do not believe the scheme of this Bill will be workable at all unless the cost of the new functions of the river authorities is fairly widely shared. I sympathise with the industries and their existing sources; but if the noble Lord is right it will mean that industry is going to carry almost the entire burden of this scheme, and that cannot be fair. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will relieve my mind and make it clear that Her Majesty's Government cannot limit the charging scheme just to industry in this way.

LORD HASTINGS

This is really a case of the statutory water undertakers trying to opt out of paying a basic charge and denying the basic principle upon which the charging arrangements are calculated and workable. I can put my noble friend out of his agony straight away by saying that the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment is wholly unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government. The basic principle of the charging arrangements in the Bill is set out in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the White Paper. The noble Lord opposite quoted paragraph 44 in his favour but he did not look at paragraphs 42 and 43. Perhaps he had forgotten what they said. There it was stated (this is based upon the Report of the Proudman Committee) that expenditure on water conservation—in other words the new functions referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross—should be a charge bearing upon all licensed abstracters and users of water. The cost of works carried out to meet the general gross demand where benefit cannot be precisely apportioned must necessarily be spread over all abstracters.

A further justification for this is that unified control and management of water resources by the river authorities will bring greater reliability of supply. That is one of the main purposes of a national water policy and of this Bill. In fact, many abstracters at present have no assurance of supply, and it is only reasonable that the cost of the conservation of water should be evenly spread over all abstracters. This principle is just as valid in the case of statutory water undertakers as it is in the case of any other sort of abstracter. If the issue is whether or not to spread the charges over all abstractions, both those existing before the coming into operation of the licensing system and those begun after it, there is no real distinction to be drawn between statutory water undertakers and the others. All will benefit from the conservation works. In addition, the statutory undertakers will have the same temporary period of exemption from the charge as other existing abstracters under licence of right, but they must otherwise be subject to the charging system like the rest.

I now turn to the noble Lord's second point, which is that the charge should be at reduced rates. The Bill looks after this point very adequately. The noble Lords seems to have put an interpretation on Clauses 56 and 58 which is different from ours. I hope to convince him that there is not much difference between us. It is only the wording of the second part of his Amendment which makes it unacceptable. For example, the noble Lord would have it that charges for water abstracted by statutory water undertakers shall in the circumstances be at reduced rates. The Bill says that a water authority may make agreements to bring about the same effect and has in reserve the Minister's power to give directions under subsection (3) of this clause, a power which specifically refers to subsection (1), allowing for exemptions altogether or reduced charges.

The noble Lord quoted paragraph 44 of the White Paper. I should have thought that this clause carries out the intention of the White Paper, which says that there will be a lower rate of charge, and perhaps no charge at all, where an abstracter, specifically mentioning the statutory water undertaker, has carried out conservation works. I do not see how the noble Lord can say that this clause does not allow for the very thing for which he is asking.

In respect of Clause 56, which deals with original charging schemes, the noble Lord said that conservation works were not being considered under that clause at all, but subsection (4) (a) refers to characteristics, either general or special, of the source of supply. Presumably a source of supply, so far as water undertakers are concerned, would be their own reservoirs. So I do not think that there is much substance in that point either. But we are dealing with Clause 58, which, I suggest, adequately deals with the situation over reduced charges or no charges at all. So far as the first part of the Amendment is concerned, I agree entirely with my noble friend behind me who said that water undertakers are not paying twice and that it was a basic principle of the Bill that everybody must contribute towards conservation work, otherwise the national water scheme would not work. I hope that the noble Lord will be reasonably satisfied and find his way to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

After my success on the last few Amendments, I am far from satisfied in regard to this one. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has had a powerful ally in the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. With the greatest respect to both noble Lords, a statutory water undertaking is in a totally different position from that of an industry. First of all, it has had to come to Parliament to promote a Private Bill, with expensive costs—the lawyers have got a lot out of it—and there have also been the expenses of making concessions in order to get the Bill through. They have also had the cost of the works they have already carried out, usually amounting to many hundreds of thousands of pounds, which they have had to borrow from financiers, who have made in interest a gain almost as great as the lawyers'. And the people who have to pay are the ratepayers who draw water through the taps provided by the statutory water undertaking. So it really is paying twice.

The only argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that weighed with me was that there was a greater reliability of supply. I would concede to him that even where conservation works have already been constructed by a statutory water undertaker, it is possible that new works might benefit the existing source of supply and its reliability. But I think that my point is fairly reasonable. Like everybody else, the statutory water undertaking should pay for the new functions the river authorities are taking over. Then they will be relieved of many of the heavy costs which they have had to bear in the past, because the main new function of the river authorities will be that of conservation, which up to the present time has been done by the statutory water undertakers and others who have water held up for their own use.

I appreciate the noble Lord's answer in regard to the second part, but should like to read in Hansard what he said about the first part. I do not think that I should flog this issue, in view of the noble Lord's statement, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment; but we may come back to the first part of it on Report stage if I am not satisfield after reading the noble Lord's statement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.29 p.m.

LORD DE RAMSEY

The object of this Amendment is to place the discretion of ultimately deciding whether a beneficial contribution has been conferred under this clause or not, with the Minister and not with the river authority as it is at present under the clause. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is not unsympathetic to the principle behind this and at a later stage may be introducing a clause to cover this point. If I am correct, I will beg leave to withdraw this Amendment on receiving that assurance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 47, at end insert— ("(4) Where an application is made to a river authority to enter into an agreement under this section and the applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the river authority on the application he may, by notice in writing under this section, appeal to the Minister and the provisions of section 39 of this Act shall apply to that appeal.").—(Lord De Ramsey.)

LORD MERRIVALE

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, on this Amendment, because I feel it is one which should commend itself strongly to industry. It seems to me only appropriate that an applicant should have the right ultimately to appeal to the Minister if he is dissatisfied in regard to an application that has been made to a river authority. I think there is a precedent for this, and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe may agree, in Section 27 (2) of the Water Act, 1945, which is concerned with agreements between statutory water undertakers and non-domestic users. It there says: Any question arising under this section as to the terms and conditions on which water is to be supplied thereunder and any question whether the undertakers are justified in refusing to give a supply, shall, in default of agreement, be referred to the Minister, and the Minister may determine it himself or, if he thinks fit, refer it for determination by an arbitrator appointed by him. Therefore, I feel that there is a precedent for the request made by the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and I hope my noble friend will give careful consideration to this Amendment.

EARL JELLICOE

I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have had to say on this point. It may seem rather odd to them that no appeal procedure has as yet been provided for under Clause 58, especially given the procedure to which the Amendment calls attention in Clause 39 for dealing with appeals against decisions by river authorities on the applications for licences themselves. The reason why no such provision is included in Clause 59 is that the Minister will already have power under subsection (3) of that clause to give directions to river authorities as to the exercise of their powers under it. That is why no specific appeal procedure has been included here.

I am not certain of the precise extent to which the precedent referred to by my noble friend Lord Merrivale is relevant. Nevertheless, in view of what noble Lords have said, I am inclined to think that we were wrong not to provide for an appeal procedure in this clause. I do not think the Amendment, as it stands, would be appropriate, since it applies Clause 39, which is specifically concerned with appeals arising from licence applications, and that clause is adapted to the particular circumstances of the licencing system, which might not be appropriate here. However, as I have said, I think noble Lords have a point here, and I will gladly respond to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and say that, if he will withdraw the Amendment now, I will undertake to see whether we can produce something on the next stage covering the point.

LORD DE RAMSEY

I am grateful to the noble Earl, and I am delighted to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 [Charges pending commencement of charging schemes]:

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1) to leave out the third "a" and insert: water abstracted in pursuance of a licence of right and used or discharged within the area of the river authority granting the".

The noble Lord said: No doubt noble Lords in charge of the Bill will be able to twit me on this occasion, because previously I was asking far charges not to be levied and bore I am proposing a charge which, as I see it, is not levied in the Bill. In any case, as I read the Bill, it will be some time before there is any charging scheme in force. Clause 57 (3) gives April 1, 1969, as the outside Limit, but even that has an escape clause. So until that time no money will be paid by anyone who has a licence of right. An undertaker, therefore, being entitled to a licence of right and taking his water from outside the catchment area, will escape entirely: he is not subject to precept because of his geographical position, and he is not subject to an interim charge under Clause 59.

I have had brought to my notice an interesting case of the River Severn and the City of Birmingham. The City of Birmingham has recently been granted the right to abstract very large quantities from the River Severn at a point in Shropshire, whence it will pipe the water to Birmingham and discharge it in the Trent area. As things stand under the Bill, they cannot be charged for the water they will take until a charging scheme comes into force; nor can they be caught by a precept, because they are not within the rateable area of the Severn. In the course of time things will work out satisfactorily, because, in partnership with other authorities, they will be building up a large conservation reservoir at the head of the River Clywedog. But this will take a good many years. Meantime, the suggested Amendment would ensure that if such users are able to avoid the payment of a precept, they will be obliged to pay an interim charge. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 49, line 8, leave out "a" and insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

I was wondering why the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, was moving this Amendment; I rather thought that it would be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. As the noble Lord said, he has just been asking us to absolve statutory water undertakers from ever paying anything for water supplied under what amounts to a licence of night, and now he is asking that there should be exceptions made to that rule. I am afraid that, because of the principle upon which this Bill is based, his two requests will cancel each other out, and he is going to be disappointed on this occasion, as he was previously.

This Amendment would narrow the scope of the temporary exemption from charges, and there is really no reason why that should be allowed to happen. The noble Lord mentioned Birmingham, which draws water from the Elan Valley reservoir system in the Wye river authority area. If this Amendment were accepted, then Birmingham would pay for that water from the beginning instead of waiting until charging schemes are brought into effect later on. Sheffield would be similarly affected, as would Birkenhead and Liverpool. But there can be no justification in principle for the Amendment. The intention of the Bill is that existing abstracters who become the holders of licences of right should be exempt from charge in the initial period. This is a principle which has no geographical or hydrological limit to its application.

I do not think the noble Lord has made out a case. Is it a question of something to do with the precept in the river authority areas concerned? We feel that the provision of a material benefit, in addition to the extra revenue received in the form of rateable income, is a matter which cannot be dealt with in general fashion in a Bill of this kind. The Amendment seems to use altogether too broad a brush to secure a result which may or may not be right for particular future schemes in Wales—and I imagine it is Wales about which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is thinking—and the noble Lord would involve past schemes in both England and Wales. We really cannot accept this. There is no case for special and specially onerous treatment in this way of schemes of this one type which chance to involve a transfer of water—and that is all it amounts to. We cannot see our way to accepting this Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.

LORD LINDGREN

I must say I think the noble Lord has made a far better case against this Amendment than he did on the previous occasion. The only point is that here you get water being abstracted well away from its source of use. Therefore, the persons using the water are not making any contribution to the cost of the works in the area whence the water is derived. Other undertakings in the area, such as ratepayers and the rest, are paying the precept from the river authority on to the county council or county borough and, therefore, are making some contribution, even though not for works. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 67 agreed to.

Clause 68 [Control of discharges into underground strata]:

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment goes with two others in Clauses 70 and 71. Clause 68 (6), Clause 70 (6), and Clause 71 (6) all apply certain of the provisions of Clause 39 dealing with appeals against the refusal of, or conditions attached to, a licence to abstract or impound. Among the implied provisions is Clause 39 (4) dealing with representations about the original application for a licence. This subsection is not, however, applicable to Clauses 68, 70 and 71, where a different procedure for considering applications is prescribed. These Amendments deal with references to Clause 39 (4) in each of those three clauses. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 23, leave out ("(4) to") and insert ("(5) and").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 69 agreed to.

Clause 70 [Revocation or variation of consent under s. 68]:

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move. This Amendment is on the same point.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 8, leave out ("(4) to") and insert ("(5) and").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71 [Borings not requiring licences under Part IV]:

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 5, leave out ("(4) to") and insert ("(5) and").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Clause 73 [Provision of recreational facilities at reservoirs]:

6.47 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved to add to the clause: ( ) To facilitate the use by boats of any inland water to which bye-laws made under the preceding section apply, a river authority may, if it appears to them reasonable to do so, carry out improvements to the inland water and provide, or otherwise make available, facilities for use by persons using such boats.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is far and away different from many of those which I have moved on this Bill. My attention has been called to the fact that there is no provision in the Bill to give power to the new authority to spend money on the improvement or conservation of existing waterways in order that facilities for boating may be provided or improved. The purpose of the Amendment is to supply that power.

I understand that the problem arose in the Parliamentary discussions on the Great Ouse Water Act, 1961, when the boating interests were pressing for safeguards as to the depth of water in parts of the Great Ouse during the time of low flow. No difficulty occurred in agreeing the amount of contribution from the water authority to the water board to protect the interests of navigation, but the river board disclaimed any liability as navigation authority, and would only accept the money on the basis that it would be used under their land drainage powers for dredging and clearing weeds, et cetera. In order that all the river authorities may have the opportunity, in so far as their water courses allow, of facilitating this amenity value, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

EARL JELLICOE

I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the provision in Clause 73 dealing with the power of river authorities to provide public facilities on reservoirs which they own and manage. That, of course, is a reflection of the growing popularity of sailing and the increasing readiness to permit such activities on reservoirs, particularly those not providing directly for the public water supply. As I mentioned earlier, on a rather similar point during the Committee stage, that in itself seems to us to be a very good thing, and it is a process which we should like to see extended and encouraged wherever possible.

As I see it, the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment would be, in effect, to extend those powers to every inland water although it would be restricted to those waters in respect of which the river authorities will have by-law-making powers under Clause 72. We think it proper in this respect to make a distinction between inland waters over which the river authority has an overall responsibility and reservoirs which the river authority will directly own and manage. Clause 72 properly applies the by-law-making power to all inland waters because the activities which are mentioned there, boating, swimming and the like, obviously need to be regulated in certain respects if damage to works of a river authority, whether land drainage or fisheries interests or whatever they may be, is to be avoided.

On the other hand, on reservoirs owned or managed directly by them, we think it might be a good thing to go further than merely controlling recreational activities and give river authorities power to encourage and assist them; because the reservoir, unlike the river—which, in fact, impinges on many private interests—will be under the direct control and ownership of the river authority itself. We doubt whether we should go as far in the case of the inland water, where the river authority will not have this direct control, as we are suggesting we should go in the case of those reservoirs. To do so would be to extend the functions of river authorities in a manner not directly related to their major responsibilities.

LORD LAWSON

Could I ask the noble Earl the following question? Am I to understand him to say that a river authority could take over reservoirs built by another authority and own them?

6.53 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

Certainly not under this clause. I was merely trying to draw a distinction between the two types of inland waterway over which the river authority will have control. They will have an overall control over the river, a direct control over certain reservoirs. That was the distinction for the purpose of this Amendment, which I was trying to make. The case which I wish to make is that we think it unwise to extend these recreational powers over these inland waters over which the river authority will have only the overall and not the direct control.

Here, first, I should like to pray in aid what the Proudman Sub-Committee have said. In paragraph 81 (ix), page 19, of their Report they refer to the amenities and they say: The amenities we have in mind here are the use of reservoirs and rivers for boating, swimming and fishing and similar purposes incidental to the management of water resources. We have decided that this question of "incidental to the management of water resources" is extremely important and that to confer these additional recreational powers directly in order to encourage recreational activities of this sort might well take the river authorities' eye off the main ball. Second, there is the vexed question of finance. It is not at all clear to me how noble Lords would wish river authorities to finance the sort of activity which they have in mind under this Amendment. May I remind noble Lords that, so far as I know, there is hardly an inland navigation in this country which pays its way? For example, the navigation fund of the Thames Conservancy runs at a loss, I gather, of some £300,000 a year, which is made up mainly from the statutory payment made by the Metropolitan Water Board to the Conservancy. If this sort of activity is not to be self-supporting and if, indeed, considerable expenditure is to be involved, then I should have thought that the abstracters, who, so far as I can make out, would be the people who have to pay for it, might well have a very legitimate arouse because it would be increasing the cost of the water on which many of their activities very largely depend.

Of course, I realise that members of the great and growing pleasure boating public and many private boat builders and hiring companies would welcome the prospect of a river authority carrying out improvements to an inland water in the way suggested. But this can be a very costly business, and I myself am doubtful whether it is really a proper responsibility to lay on river authorities except where they are specifically equipped, as in the case of the Thames Conservancy, with all the powers of a navigation authority or in the case of the reservoirs which, as was mentioned, are already going to exercise direct control. The last thing I would wish in arguing against this Amendment would be to appear to be a spoil-sport, but, in all the circumstances. I do not feel I can really advise your Lordships to accept it.

LORD LINDGREN

One can think of very many rivers up and down the country in which boating, from the point of view of both the boat club and the normal casual pleasure boater, is quite an amenity of the river; and the reason for this Amendment was, as in the case of the Ouse, where the statutory water undertaker was anxious and prepared to make a contribution in order that there could be the facility of boating on the river, and the amount in order that it could be done was agreed with the river authority, that it was understood the river authority had no power to take it except on the basis of their land drainage function. One would have thought that in a river where this would have been an added facility, statutory water undertakers as and where they so desired, and in co-operation with a river authority, could make contributions towards it. But if the noble Earl thinks it is not feasible, then I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.

EARL JELLICOE

I just want to ask the noble Lord—I did not get this quite clear—in the case of the River Ouse, for example, did the river board receive a payment or was there an offer of payment from someone?

LORD LINDGREN

From the statutory water undertaking; and the difficulty arose upon the river board's acceptance of the payment. They could accept it, it was said, or at least as I understood it, only in regard to their land drainage function and not in regard to any activity they might carry out in making the river more attractive from the point of view of boating, removing weeds and the rest of it. It was from that point of view that the Amendment was moved, but in view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 73 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD AIREDALE

This clause makes use of the expression "such reasonable charges as a river authority may determine". Is it intended that river authorities shall have power finally to determine the reasonableness of their own charges, or is it intended that they are to be liable to be called upon to justify the reasonableness of their charges before some other tribunal or body?

EARL JELLICOE

This is only in respect of the recreational use of the reservoirs, I take it?

LORD AIREDALE

Yes.

EARL JELLICOE

As I understand it, in all their major charging schemes the river authorities will have to get ministerial approval, but in this particular respect I think the situation is self-contained. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think that we have either written in or intended to write into this section of the Bill a right of appeal against the charges which the river authority would lay down for these restricted recreational purposes.

LORD AIREDALE

That means that an aggrieved person who felt that he was being charged excessively for the use of recreational facilities would have nowhere to air his grievance except before the river authority concerned, whose decision in the matter would be final.

EARL JELLICOE

I think we were seeking to apply the same sort of principle as appears when one goes to a theatre. So far as I know, one does not have an appeal against the 19s. 6d.—or 6s. if it is a cinema—which is levied on one. I should have thought that in this relatively minor and restricted sphere we should not wish to introduce an extra appeal procedure. I am speaking subject to correction, but I do not think it is there.

On Question, Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74 agreed to.

Clause 75:

Future transfers of functions or property of other authorities and undertakings

75.—(1) A river authority may at any time apply to the Ministers for an order under this section transferring to the river authority any one or more of the following, that is to say— (e) the functions of managing and operating any such reservoir or work as is mentioned in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of this subsection, but without a transfer of the ownership of the reservoir or work.

(4) An order under this section may contain such transitional, incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as the Ministers consider necessary or expedient, including (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) such provisions as they consider necessary or expedient—

1. (a) with respect to the transfer of assets and liabilities, the payment of compensation and other financial adjustments;

(7) Where by an order or agreement made by virtue of this section any functions are transferred to a river authority as mentioned in subsection (1) (e) thereof, references in this Act to the new functions of the authority shall be construed as including, and references to their transferred functions as not including, a reference to those functions.

7.2 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will speak on this Amendment together with Amendment number 123H, because in fact that is consequential on it. Clause 75 makes provision for a river authority to obtain an order of the Minister transferring to the river authority functions and property of other authorities. The things that may be transferred are set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1). Under paragraph (c) the Minister may transfer a reservoir belonging to a statutory water undertaker, and under paragraph (d) a well belonging to a statutory water undertaker may be transferred. Under paragraph (e) there may be transferred the functions of managing and operating any such reservoir or work as is mentioned in paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of this subsection, but without a transfer of the ownership of the reservoir or work.

The Amendment that I move is to delete paragraph (e). There may be a case for transferring to a river authority a reservoir belonging to a statutory water undertaker, and there may equally be a case for transferring a well or borehole. In either case there is provision for the payment of compensation to the statutory water undertaker, and that will apply. But I would suggest that it is altogether wrong that it should be possible to transfer to a river authority the complete control over a reservoir or a well without actually transferring the ownership. The ownership will remain with the statutory water undertaker. The statutory water undertaker would receive no compensation for the loss of the reservoir. The statutory water undertaker would continue to be responsible for paying the loan charges on the reservoir and would be responsible for its maintenance and repair. It is harsh and unjust that all the advantages of ownership of the reservoir or well will be transferred to the river authority while all the burdens of ownership will be left with the statutory water undertaker.

If it is desirable that any reservoir or well at present operated by a statutory water undertaker should be operated by a river authority, then the ownership can be transferred by order of the Minister under paragraphs (c) or (d) of subsection (1). Therefore paragraph (e) which provides for the transfer of the control without the ownership is not necessary, for the control can be transferred with ownership. Paragraph (e) would enable the river authority to obtain the control over and benefit of a reservoir or well belonging to a statutory water undertaker without being obliged to assume any of the financial or practical problems of ownership. I would suggest that this cannot be justified; and the Amendment therefore proposes to delete paragraph (e). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, leave out lines 6 to 9.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord has made a strong case for striking out the possibility of transferring management of a reservoir without ownership, but I can assure him he has completely misunderstood the purpose of this clause. We are here seeking only to retain flexibility, and, to prove that, we have said not only that the river authority must apply to the Minister before one of these transfers can take place but that the statutory water undertaker can also apply to the Minister for precisely the same sort of transfer if it wishes to. It does not seem to have occurred to the noble Lord and his friends who have spoken to him outside this House about these matters that a statutory water undertaker might want this sort of transfer and it might suit it very well. We feel that the provision is potentially a valuable one and the statutory water undertaker might be quite happy to transfer to a river authority the right to manage or operate a reservoir or borehole, perhaps by agreement between the authorities, which is allowed for under subsection (5) of the clause, rather than by ministerial order, when it would be unwilling to transfer the property itself. It may be that the reservoir concerned is one of a chain of reservoirs or the borehole one of a group of boreholes. Possibly the agreement might even envisage transfer for a limited period of time only. I think this Committee might take cognisance of the fact that there can be great advantages in providing for these transfers, for example in connection with the river management functions of the new authorities and the experiments into artificial recharging of aquifers, and I do not think we should limit this clause in the way the noble Lord has suggested.

His case rests on his belief, which I am sure is quite mistaken and not the intention of this clause at all, that the river authorities will try to take over the convenient rights to manage and operate while leaving with the water undertakers the burdensome business of ownership maintenance and repairs. The noble Lord said they would have no compensation far the loss of the use of the reservoir, but that is not at all the case. They will indeed have compensation, and that is allowed for under subsection (4) which refers to the provision for financial adjustments, and which is the subject under a different aspect of a further Amendment the noble Lord is going to move in a moment. But under subsection (4) all these complicated financial adjustments are allowed, and that would most certainly look after the question of the duties of the undertaking if it had to maintain the reservoir while at the same time the river authority was using, or managing, it for its own purposes. That is allowed for in the subsection.

I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that, after all, the Minister of Housing is interested in the welfare of water undertakers just as strongly as he is in the welfare of river authorities—he is really responsible for both. It is in his interests and those of all concerned that any such transfer shall be carried out in an equitable and absolutely fair manner. We want only the flexibility to be able to do these transfers on occasions when it should be convenient and necessary. That is the intention of the clause, and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I must admit that I did not see it at all in the light in which the noble Lord has just put it to the Committee. My immediate reaction was that where there is to be management, management can be much more effective and efficient where in fact there is ownership as well. Even now, I cannot see under subsection (4) where, if the management is taken over, there is a payment to the water undertaker. But in the light of what the noble Lord has said, which we can look at again at a later stage should that be necessary, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LINDGREN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words from the second "necessary" to the end of paragraph (a) and to insert instead: just and equitable with respect to the transfer of assets and liabilities, the payment of compensation and other financial adjustments, and such provisions as they consider necessary or expedient with respect to—

The noble Lord said: Clause 75 gives Ministers power by order to transfer to authorities certain properties belonging to statutory water undertakers. We have been discussing this in the previous Amendment. Subsection (4) provides that the order transferring the property may contain such provisions as the Minister considers necessary or expedient with respect to the transfer of assets and liabilities, the payment of compensation and other financial adjustments. It is contended that the provision with respect to the transfer of assets and payment of compensation should not be on the basis of expediency but on the basis of what is just and equitable. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the compensation for compulsory transfer of assets shall be just and equitable and not merely expedient. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 24, leave out from ("necessary") to the end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

I think this is really a question of words. There is no difference about intention in this matter, and the Committee may be assured that the provisions that the Ministers think it necessary or expedient to make in a matter like this will, where questions of justice and equity enter into it, be just and equitable. But justice and equity may not in fact enter into all these matters—some may be just questions of fact, such as how to secure an effective transfer of some particular asset or other.

I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment so that the words "necessary and expedient" may continue to stand, comprising within themselves the necessity and expediency of being always just and equitable, and without drawing distinctions, possibly invidious distinctions, between various parts of the job which is to be carried out by the Ministers. In a way, of course, this links up with another Amendment that the noble Lord will be moving in respect of the Schedules and the procedure to follow. We can discuss that when we come to it. In respect of this wording there is, of course, every intention to be just and equitable; and I hope that the noble Lord would not infer that Ministers, of whatever Party they happen to be, would act in any other way.

LORD LINDGREN

I would not make that suggestion or imputation against Ministers, past or present, or in the future; but what is expedient is not always fair and reasonable—at any rate, not in ordinary everyday life. Whether it will be so under an Act of Parliament remains to be seen. But in the light of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

7.16 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved to add to the clause: ( ) The provisions of Schedule (Orders authorising transfers of functions or property of other authorities and undertakings) to this Act shall have effect in relation to an order under this section.

The noble Lord said: The purpose of these Amendments—there are a number of them—is to lay down a formal procedure to be followed in making orders authorising the transfer of functions of property belonging to authorities. Under Clause 75, as we have already mentioned, a river authority may apply to Ministers for an order to transfer to the river authority property belonging to the statutory water undertakers. Under subsection (3) the Ministers are to consult with the statutory water undertakers or other body from whom the order proposes to take property, and the Ministers must consider any representation made to them.

This appears to be the only formal procedure that must be observed before an order may be made by the Ministers. The machinery is not adequate to make public any proposal for the transfer of property or function under this clause, nor does it provide for a full and proper hearing of the proposal and objections in public, if there be the need. An order made under Clause 75 may deal with a reservoir costing £1 million or more; the water undertaker owning the reservoir may have the strongest objection to the transfer of the property to the river authority. It may be that other parties will be affected by the transfer; the local authority representing the public may be opposed to the transfer. It would not be satisfactory that issues so large and important should be dealt with behind closed doors at the Ministry. The Amendment therefore proposes that the machinery set out in the proposed new Schedule should apply to the making of orders under Clause 75. The machinery of the Schedule would require adequate publicity for any proposal in an order to be made under Clause 75. It would require the service of notices on persons affected and, in the event of objection, it would require a local inquiry or hearing before a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose. The new Schedule 7 is in similar terms to the existing Schedule 7.

While we are on the point of Clause 75, another important matter has been brought to my attention—I gave the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, a little preliminary notice of this paint. I think this might be a convenient moment to deal with it, because it seems to me to tie to with this Amendment. This is a case involving a water undertaker, Liverpool Corporation, and their Tryweryn reservoir. In order to meet the requirements of their undertaking, the Corporation have provided a reservoir for impounding water in order to release water lower down in the river. Under the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1957, the Corporation are at present engaged on constructing a reservoir (the work is not yet completed) in the Tryweryn valley, in Wales, with a capacity of not less than 16 million gallons, for regulating the flow in the River Dee and thus facilitating the abstraction by the Corporation of water from the Dee at Huntington, near Chester. Under the Bill the Corporation will be entitled to a river authority licence of right (Clause 33), but will face payment of appreciable charges to the river authority by reference to the authorised abstraction (Clause 56 (2)), unless Clause 58 is operated and an agreement entered into in regard to the Corporation's expenditure on the Tryweryn works.

The Corporation would naturally expect, in view of the scale of expenditure in this direction, that they would be exempt from such charges. If it is at all possible, some pronouncement on this point would be appreciated. The main point is that the Tryweryn reservoir will be a river-regulating reservoir. It could perhaps be said to be operated "wholly or mainly for the supply of water to consumers" (Clause 75 (1) (c)). In that event the river authority could apply to the Minister for an order to transfer either the reservoir, or its management and operation, to the authority. It would be useful for the Corporation to know whether or not the Tryweryn reservoir would in fact fall within the terms of Clause 75 (1). That is not the only case, but is a case that has been specifically brought to my attention. I understand that a number of other people are in exactly the same position. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD HASTINGS

My answer will be extremely short because Her Majesty's Government can accept this Amendment in principle. It will need to be equipped with some procedural matter for dealing with these orders, and clearly something very much on the lines the noble Lord has put forward will be wanted, with provision for public notice, a right of objection and a local inquiry or hearing. But we should like to think over how this provision can be inserted most economically into the Bill. We are prepared to introduce an Amendment and Schedule in order to meet this point. Having given that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. My noble friend will reply to the detailed points that were raised.

EARL JELLICOE

I was grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of these points. I think I can give him satisfaction on both the specific queries that he put to me. I can assure him straight away that the Tryweryn scheme would quite certainly be one which would justify consideration of a reduction of charges, or exemption from charges, under the procedure laid down in Clause 58 of the Bill. I can also assure him that the Tryweryn scheme, and others like it, would also fall within the terms of Clause 75 (1) (c).

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to bath noble Lords for the answers they have given, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I will not, of course, move the Schedule when we come to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75 agreed to.

LORD BURDEN moved, after Clause 75, to insert the following new clause

Compensation to staff

".—(1) The Ministers shall by regulations make provision for the payment by such river authority as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations, subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be so prescribed, of compensation to persons who are, or but for any national service of theirs would he officers or servants of any statutory water undertakers and who suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, which is attributable to an order under the last preceding section or anything done in pursuance of any such order.

(2) Different regulations may be made under this section in relation to different classes of persons, and any such regulations may be so framed as to have effect as from a date earlier than that on which they are made, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect as from a date earlier than that on which they are made shall not place any person (other than a river authority) in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only as from the date on which they are made.

(3) Regulations made under this section may include provision as to the manner in which, and the persons to whom, any claim for compensation under this section is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.

(4) In this section 'national service' means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under this section."

The noble Lord said: We have just been discussing the transfer of functions and properties of other authorities to river boards, under which arrangements have been made, quite rightly, for the payment of compensation, and so on. I think it is fairly clear that in the event of property or functions of other authorities and undertakings being transferred it is possible for members of the staff to be adversely affected. For example, if part of the properties of great corporations, like Sheffield, Manchester, and others, were transferred to a river board that might have an adverse effect on the staff. My new clause makes provision for payment of compensation to members of staff who may be so adversely affected. I do not think it necessary or desirable to argue this case, because it is accepted in the Bill. In fact I think my new clause substantially reproduces Clause 90, and it is because we feel Clause 90 is not linked or related in any way to Clause 75 that we have felt it necessary to put forward this new clause.

Amendment moved— After Clause 75, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Burden.)

EARL JELLICOE

I should like to make it quite clear to the noble Lord at once that we have no objection in principle to his new clause. I hope, however, that in the light of the explanation I shall now give him he will agree that it may be unnecessary, and possibly also incomplete. In the first place Clause 75 (4) enables orders under that clause to provide for the payment of compensation by applying, subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified, the compensation regulations required to be made by the Ministers under Clause 90 covering persons affected by the transfer of river boards' functions under the Bill.

I understand that what was worrying the noble Lord was that there was not a bridge or connection organically in the Bill between Clause 75 (4) and Clause 90. I think that in fact there is. Clause 90 (1) is so drawn that the regulations may cover all persons, no matter by whom they are employed, who suffer loss of employment or reduction in pay attributable to the transfer of river boards' functions under this Bill. Clause 75 (4) enables the provisions of these regulations to be applied to all persons, however employed, who so suffer in consequence of any transfer of this nature. I feel that there is a perfectly clear organic connection, which leads back from Clause 90 to Clause 5, and then from Clause 5 to Clause 75. I should like to be able to assure the noble Lord on that point.

There is a difficulty about his proposed new clause, in that, as I read it, it is incomplete, since it refers only to officers and servants of water undertakings, and does not cover other persons who may be affected by orders under Clause 75—for example, employees of navigation, conservancy and other authorities. I had thought that a point which might be worrying the noble Lord was the fact that Clause 75 (4) was permissive, while the new clause which he seeks to embody in the Bill makes it clear that Ministers would be required to make the necessary regulations. He did not mention that point, but I should like to take this opportunity of assuring him that it is most certainly our intention that any particular orders made by my right honourable friend under Clause 75 (4) shall include the provision for compensation, applying the regulations under Clause 90 with any necessary adaptations and modifications. Noble Lords can be quite sure that this will, in fact, be done. I therefore suggest to the noble Lord that the position is adequately covered in the Bill as drafted. I realise that he may wish to read in Hansard what I am now saying. But I hope that in the light of the explanation which I have sought to give, and of my assurance about my right honourable friend's intentions here, he may not wish to press this Amendment.

LORD BURDEN

I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation which he has given to the Committee. I feel sure, from the emphatic manner in which the noble Earl gave the assurance, that he feels it is quite all right, and, subject to careful consideration of his words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL JELLICOE

I think that we agreed to adjourn our discussion at half past seven, to sample this new form of supper which the Chief Whip mentioned just now. In the light of that, if noble Lords are agreeable, I beg to move that this Committee do now adjourn until half past eight o'clock.

Moved, That the Committee do now adjourn.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended at twenty six minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half-past eight o'clock.]

Clause 76 [Water resources accounts of river authorities]:

LORD HASTINGS

I move this Amendment formally. As I have explained on previous Amendments, it is a question of drafting in view of another Amendment to come later. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 10, leave out ("vehicle").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 [Reserve funds of river authorities]:

8.32 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN moved, after subsection (1) to insert: ( ) Any river authority establishing a reserve fund in accordance with the preceding subsection shall thereupon become an authority to which Section 11 of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 applies ".

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, I would suggest, is really self-explanatory. Under the Trustee Investments Act, 1961, local authorities (and other trustees as well, of course) were empowered to invest their capital funds in a wider range of securities than had previously been possible. As a result of that Act the Local Authority Mutual Investment Trust was set up to give local authorities wishing to invest their capital funds facilities similar to those afforded to investors by a unit trust. Large authorities, of course—the county councils and the rest—can, with the aid of panels, make a wide range of investments, including equities, which gives them a cover, and they are thereby able to hedge against inflation. The purpose of this Amendment is to give river authorities, large or small, and particularly the smaller ones, the opportunity of being able to invest their funds with the advice of specialists in order that they can get the best spread and the best advice, and also, by these investments, be able to protect their funds against inflation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lindgren.)

EARL JELLICOE

As the noble Lord knows, Section 11 of the Trustee Investments Act, 1961, is pretty closely confined to local authorities in the ordinary sense of the term, and to certain other authorities wholly composed of or concerned with local authorities. As a result, river boards cannot take advantage of the provisions of Section 11 of that Act, since they are not authorities to whom the section applies. I should like to grant straight away that very possibly it would now be right for us to consider, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, whether river authorities, when they are set up, should be able to take advantage of this section of the 1961 Act but I am sure that, in view of the noble Lord's long experience of local government matters, he would agree that it would be wrong for us to reach a decision now, without the opportunity for proper consultation on this matter with the local authority associations.

If he and his colleague who is associated with him in this Amendment would agree not to press it now, I, for my part, am very willing to undertake to look into the possibility of our consulting the appropriate local authority associations without delay about the admission of river authorities to the benefits of schemes established under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. In so doing I would make it clear that we feel that the question of the admission of outsiders (if I may use the term, not inappropriately, to the scheme established under this Section 11) is in our view very much a matter for the local authorities themselves to decide. But I hope I have said enough to assure the noble Lord that I am certainly not in disagreement with him over the principle behind the Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. I can tell him, from my general knowledge (I have no authority to speak for them) of the local authority associations, that they will be only too pleased; and I am delighted that he will consult with them. I am sure they will be pleased because, having set up this local authority mutual investment trust themselves in order to give to the smaller local authorities facilities which big county councils and the others, because of their size, can enjoy on their own, I am certain they would like to get added custom for it if custom were available. In view of what the noble Earl has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

This is a purely drafting, preparing the way for the next Amendment in the new clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 33, after ("this") insert ("and the next following").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 [Vehicle replacement funds]:

LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out Clause 78 and to insert instead:

Replacement funds of river authorities

"78.—(1) A river authority may at any time establish and thereafter maintain a replacement fund, and, subject to the following provisions of this section, may pay into that fund any receipts of the authority.

(2) Any moneys for the time being comprised in the replacement fund of a river authority may be applied in or towards the acquisition of any vehicle or apparatus to which this section applies by way of replacement of any such vehicle or apparatus owned by the authority.

(3) This section applies to the following vehicles and apparatus, that is to say—

1. (a) mechanically propelled vehicles;
2. (b) any other mechanically propelled mobile apparatus; and
3. (c) any apparatus constructed or adapted for use in conjunction with any vehicle or apparatus falling within either of the preceding paragraphs.

(4) No sums shall be paid into the replacement fund of a river authority at any time when the amount then comprised in that fund is equal to, or exceeds, one per cent. of the aggregate amount of capital expenditure incurred by the authority before that time; and the amount paid into the replacement fund of a river authority in any financial year shall not exceed one-tenth of one per cent. of the capital expenditure incurred by the authority before the beginning of that year."

The noble Lord said: This is the new clause to which I have referred, to extend the vehicle replacement fund to include other vehicles. As it appears the Bill empowers river authorities to establish and maintain a vehicle replacement fund. Monies may be put to the fund from any receipts of the authority, and there is no limitation as to the functions of the authority for which the vehicles are required. It has been suggested, and the Government accept the point, that the fund could usefully be extended to cover other forms of mechanically propelled vehicles and apparatus commonly used by river boards such as bulldozers, and draglines. The Amendment seeks to delete the existing clause and to substitute a provision which embraces not only vehicles but other mechanically propelled mobile apparatus and any apparatus adapted for use in conjunction with such vehicles. Additionally, the clause follows the precedent of similar provisions included in orders setting up new water undertakings and prescribes an annual limit on the contributions made to the fund and the overall size of the fund. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 35, leave out Clause 78 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79 [Precepts by river authorities]:

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment, 123O, and Amendment 123P are both drafting Amendments consequential upon the last one which introduced a revised version of Clause 78. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 1, leave out ("vehicle").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 80 [General provisions as to finances of river authorities]:

LORD HASTINGS

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 4, leave out ("vehicle").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION moved, after Clause 81, to insert the following new clause:

Grants in respect of conservation works

". The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, make out of the moneys provided by Parliament grants to river authorities in respect of expenditure properly incurred by them with a view to carrying out water conservation works in their areas."

The noble Lord said: I have the temerity to think that this is an important clause and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take some time in moving it. The Bill as at present drafted makes no provision at all for financial assistance to river authorities, no matter what the obligations imposed upon them by the need for water conservation. As I see it, the Bill is intended to secure that there shall be a national policy for the conservation and redistribution of water resources in England and Wales, and to provide the necessary machinery to see that that policy is effectively carried out.

At the centre will be the Minister, whose duty will be to formulate policy and to secure that under his control and direction the policy will be effectively executed. To advise him in the formulation of that policy and, if necessary, to prod him into activity, if he appears to be falling down on the job, there will be the Water Resources Board. That Board, if I may quote the strong words used by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on Second Reading [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 244 (No. 12), col. 1089] will have clear-cut promotional responsibilities. And a little later on, in the same column, he said: This Bill makes it a duty for the river authority both to formulate schemes and to carry out schemes implementing the recommendations of the Board, and that duty of the river authority to implement the recommendations of the Board is clearly set out in subsection (1) (c) of Clause 14 …". In the same paragraph of his speech, he invited us … to note that we have … given the Board this clear directive power over river authorities. To carry out these directions to be given by the Minister and the Board, there will be, of course, the river authorities, each of which must itself formulate a scheme for its own area and, in the words of Clause 4 … take all such action as they may from time to time consider necessary or expedient, or as they may be directed to take by virtue of this Act, for the purpose of conserving, re-distributing or otherwise augmenting water resources in their area, of securing the proper use of water resources in their area, or of transferring any such resources to the area of another river authority. So we see that the river authorities will have to carry out the schemes they have formulated themselves for the use of water in their own areas, the schemes recommended by the Water Resources Board and also the directions of the Minister for transferring the water which they have conserved into the area or areas of other authorities. This will mean—again I quote the noble Earl—that … promotion in its widest sense—promotion, for example, of these great conservation schemes which will be coming—as likely to become increasingly important in the future …".

How are these great conservation schemes to be paid for? Surely such schemes envisage great conservation works. Without them, this talk of great conservation schemes would be nonsense. There must be great works, if we are indeed to conserve water to meet future demands, which have been estimated variously but by the Proudman Committee as something like an increase of 25 per cent. over the next ten years. If all the river authorities have to do is to restrict the extraction of water from the sources of supply in their areas, issue licences and charge for the water to be extracted, then I regard the financial provisions of the Bill, as at present drafted, as completely adequate. If that is the sum total of their work, then the Water Resources Board will be a shocking waste of experts' time and of public money. But if the Bill is really intended to make legislative provision for great conservation schemes and the necessary work to implement them, then in certain cases the cost of the schemes must come initially from a source other than those sources provided in the Bill itself.

The certain cases to which I refer are, of course, the poorer authorities. I think it must be noted in this connection that these poorer authorities are, in the main, those where ample supplies of water are available for conservation. The Proudman Committee clearly had such cases in mind when they made their recommendation in paragraph 122. They there said: We have expressed the view that conservation should in general be financially self-supporting. Nevertheless, in view of the importance of water in the national economy, we think that circumstances may arise in which it would be in the national interest to make financial assistance available from Exchequer funds. The same point has also been expressed by the County Councils Association; though, with the well-known propensity of such associations to make claims on the Exchequer, their point of view may be a little suspect. Surely, however, that cannot apply to the Proudman Committee, which is not in the same position. It seems to me that the strongest case for making an Exchequer grant would be that in which the Water Resources Board or the Minister directed the river authority to carry out a scheme which the river authority would not otherwise have undertaken, either because of their poverty or because they had ample water for the abstractions within their own area which they proposed to license. I should think that the Water Resources Board, in advising the Minister, ought in some cases to be able to say to him: "We are convinced that there is a need for great water conservation works in the area of such-and-such an authority. We are also convinced that their income from abstractions, from precepting et cetera, is such that the authority would be unable to carry out the schemes that we recommend, and that in this case, an Exchequer grant should be made."

It does not seem to me that in most cases there will be any necessity for a grant at all, but I feel that these exceptional cases must arise wherein it would be in the national interest for the Exchequer to be in a position to make a grant. This Amendment only empowers the Minister to make grants, and it would be for him to decide the circum- stances which would justify such action. Thus an application by a river authority, or a recommendation by the Water Resources Board, would be subjected to the closest possible scrutiny. It would have to go through the process of approval by the Treasury, a body not notoriously open handed—and rightly so, I would say; it is the job of the Treasury to safeguard the taxpayers' money. But any application such as I am mentioning would, of course, have to go through the mill of the Treasury. I know that all Ministers have a fear of opening the floodgates of applications, and of the pressures which the various associations can bring to bear through Members of Parliament and others upon the Minister. But I must say that I have every confidence in the Treasury's well-known aptitude for closing such floodgates firmly and completely where necessary. If we are not going to make a mockery of this task of solving the problem of Britain's water supplies; if we are not going to flout the wise recommendation of the Proudman Committee—and that Committee recommended what I am now putting forward—then I think we must include in the Bill the clause that I am now proposing.

I have been fortunate twice recently when the noble Earl has replied to me, when he has acceded to the requests I was putting forward. This will be the third time, and they say "Three tries for a Welshman". I do not happen to be a Welshman, but I am trying again for the third time to get exactly the same effect. I hope that when the noble Earl replies he will make as good a reply as he has on the two previous occasions.

EARL JELLICOE

I do not wish to reply at this stage to the noble Lord, but although I followed him closely in his argument I am afraid I allowed my attention to be diverted at one moment. If I followed his argument correctly, he was saying that, in the great majority of cases perhaps, an Exchequer grant would not be necessary, but he then gave examples of various circumstances in which he thought there should at least be the possibility of Exchequer grant. One was the poorer authority, but he then mentioned another example which I am afraid I missed. Would it be asking too much for him to put me on the right track?

LORD CHAMPION

Not at all. I thought there were two other circumstances in which the Minister ought to be empowered to make grants. They were, first, where the Water Resources Board itself directs the river authority to undertake works of conservation, and, secondly, where the Minister himself issues such a direction to a river authority. In both those cases it would appear to me that an extremely strong case could be made out for an Exchequer grant. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 81 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Champion.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

There is little that needs to be added to what my noble friend has said in moving this Amendment, but it seems to me that one of the strongest arguments is that works of conservation are things that are only rarely undertaken, probably in any one river basin only at very long intervals after many years. The expenditure for these things is, therefore, essentially capital expenditure. It is not the type of expenditure which should be collected by means of a precept on local authorities, because if a river authority precepts on their component parts so much money that they will have a surplus which they can store up against the time when they have to make a big capital expenditure, then they are gathering too much in the form of local taxation from the area. It seems essentially a case, therefore, where Parliament, in these rare cases of large expenditure on large works, should help.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

I should like to say a word on this, because we are coming soon to the amalgamation of areas, some of which do not want to be amalgamated. If an area on one side of the watershed thinks it has a good project and wishes to carry out experimental work just over the watershed, they would not be allowed to do so and to ask for a grant, although it might be essential to the scheme because the other area was unwilling to join in it. Therefore, in the noble Lord's Amendment—which I think would be a wise one to have—the only words I do not like are "in their areas". If we leave out those words, then, with the advice of the Water Resources Board and the approval of the Minister, we might get a scheme going which we might not get going if we left in the words "in their areas".

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments, but I think I ought to say a word about this Amendment, and I cannot quite see how the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill can them reject it out of hand. I well remember when the Drainage Bill, 1930, was passed. There, of course, it was permissive for the Treasury to make a grant in a special case. I recall that one scheme in my own Parliamentary Division, or a great part of it, was to cost somewhere in the region of £1¾ million. In 1931 the first offer the Treasury made was a grant of £10,000—so that the Treasury were not overflowing with human kindness on that occasion. Obviously, nothing happened, and within two years between 700 and 800 men, women and children were flooded from their homes and had to live in elementary schools for seven or eight weeks while their houses were cleaned. Ultimately, the Treasury came to their senses and made a very sizeable grant. A scheme has been carried out and there has been no flooding since.

Just as it was important for that drainage work to be carried out for one purpose, it is equally important for the Government to produce a Bill to conserve water in certain areas so that supplies will be available for agriculture and horticulture as and when called for. So, in the two things, I see little or no difference between the Treasury's making a grant in a suitable case for water conservation and their making a grant for the prevention of flooding in certain otter areas.

I think in terms for the moment of the Great Ouse Scheme which was likely to cost in the region of £7 million. I forget the exact figure but it was around that sum. The scheme was very necessary and was called for for years, but it was all a question of finance. It was supposed to be a poor rateable area and they could not hope to face a bill of that magnitude. Finally, however, one Government had to say the right word and provide something like four-fifths or five-sixths of the total cost. My recollection sometimes serves me well and at other times not so well, but I think it was a Labour Government which provided the grant; and the scheme has been beyond count in its good qualities so far as that area of the country is concerned. I repeat, I see little or no difference where the Water Resources Board finds a scheme to be absolutely necessary in the interests of agriculture and for other purposes. It may be a costly scheme or not so costly; in their wisdom the Treasury would be able to determine whether or not a grant should be given, and the size of it.

Under this Bill the Minister is given great powers. He is in the Bill from Clause 1 to the end of time. In Clause 96 he has powers of default; if the Water Resources Board provide a scheme, direct the river authority to carry it out, and the river authority, for one reason or another—perhaps because of the financial implications—fail to carry it out, then the Minister has the power to direct them to carry it out—more power, I think, than the Minister has with regard to land drainage. So it seems at least as important that the permissive power should be there for the Treasury to provide a grant if the Minister or Ministers feel that such a grant is necessary. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to reply will retain his pleasantry to the end of the night's session anyhow, and at least tell us that the Treasury in 1962 are no less good financiers, wise administrators who will help only where they know help to be really necessary, and will at least be given a permissive power to make the grant, should the necessity arise.

9.2 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

The noble Lord, Lord Champion was perfectly correct in describing this as an important Amendment, and I think that he made a very powerful speech in support of it. It is true that in paragraph 122 of their Report the Proudman Sub-Committee recommended that in certain cases Exchequer grants should be payable to river authorities to cover at least part of the expenditure incurred by them on works of conservation. A glance at paragraph 122 would, however, make it perfectly clear that this particular recommendation was couched in extremely guarded terms. The Government's position on this has been perfectly consistent throughout. We have taken the view, and it was made crystal clear in the White Paper, that the cost of conservation should be paid by those who benefit by conservation, namely the water abstracters. Exceptionally, of course—and there is an exception—during the initial period before charging schemes come into operation conservation will, as your Lordships know, be mainly financed by precept upon the local authorities.

This general principle, that conservation should be paid for by those who benefit from it is, I suggest, entirely in line with what happens now in the public water supply service. That service is entirely financed by charges paid by the customers, and, save in three very limited cases, it is not in any way subsidised by the taxpayer. I would urge that we should think very carefully before we decide to depart from that principle, and I further believe, on the basis of such trial studies or spot surveys as have been undertaken, that the financial resources of the river authorities will fully match their new responsibilities for water conservation. And because I believe that, I am in no wise inclined to retreat from what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, quoted me as saying during our Second Reading debate on this matter.

Noble Lords have advanced a number of cogent arguments against this view, and I admit that there can be two sides to this question. I think that the first argument which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, deployed was that some of the richest areas in water supply may well be the poorest in finance, and that while, for example, costly schemes of conservation may well be needed in those areas the river authorities responsible for them will not have the necessary financial resources to undertake such work. I think that that particular argument is misconceived. If costly works are needed in the poorer areas, which tend to be those which are rich in water, it is likely to be mainly for export to other areas poor in water but often rich in financial resources. To the extent that this is so, the importing authorities should bear the cost, by capital contribution or by annual contribution to loan charges, and that is the principle as provided for in the Bill. I would have thought that in itself it was an absolutely sound principle.

The noble Lord also suggested that it might well be that the Water Resources Board, or the Minister himself, as part of our national planning for water conservation, might require a local authority—I take a sort of semi-hypothetical example—to develop a more expensive source than they would themselves have chosen. I do not think that that sort of necessity for direction would come in in that way. In that case noble Lords are inclined to argue that the Exchequer should make up the extra cost. I would submit that if we are to have truly national planning of our national water resources it is inevitable that some areas will have to face higher costs than they would have done if there had been no planning in the first place, and if it were simply a question of first come, first served. I would have thought that we should accept this as a consequence of a national water policy; but I would not have thought that that in itself was a reason for an Exchequer subsidy, because as a result of that policy the abstracters will be obtaining both direct and indirect benefits.

The third argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, deployed, was the argument that Exchequer subsidy is paid for land drainage; if Exchequer subsidy is paid for land drainage, why should we not make provision for the possibility of the payment of Exchequer subsidy for purposes of water conservation? I would grant that in itself there may be a certain rough justice about this particular argument. But in thinking about the argument, I think we should bear in mind the history, as I understand it—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, will correct me here if I am wrong—of the Exchequer subsidy paid in respect of land drainage.

I think, as he said, that that was first provided for in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, following the Report of a Royal Commission on the subject. If my understanding is correct, the Royal Commission envisaged that as far as this was concerned, there should be a contribution by agriculture to such land drainage schemes. But before the proposals could be given effect to, the Local Government Act, 1929, intervened with the derating of agricultural land which was written into that Act. This, of course, largely torpedoed the contribution which was foreseen for agriculture in this respect. It was for that rather particular reason that the Exchequer subsidy in respect of land drainage crept in, rightly or wrongly.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

But the noble Earl will not forget, of course, the very vital point that a scheme may be a costly one to those operating in the lowlands, because the agriculturists in the lowlands were frequently flooded—in fact, I have seen their barley, oats and wheat floating down the river, and even across the fields—and they just could not afford to face the bill for any considerable land drainage scheme. For the first time in the history of the country those resident in the upland cities were called upon to pay through precept on their rates. It was the ratepayers who jibbed, after the 1930 Act was passed, at making some of the hefty contributions they might have had to make had it not been for some Treasury assistance given at the time, and also at present, I think. That situation, as well as the derating of agriculture in 1929, should also be remembered.

EARL JELLICOE

I should not wish to bandy expertise with the noble Lord on this particular point, but I think he would grant that there were particular historical reasons which led to the Exchequer subsidy being paid in this respect. I do not think that those particular historical reasons can necessarily be said to apply in this particular respect, but on the supplementary point he has made, I certainly should like to consider his argument and should not wish to cross swords with him.

There is another argument that could be used by noble Lords who would like to see provision made for Exchequer grant here, and I was rather surprised that it was not advanced. I was wondering whether I could deal with the argument, even though it has not been made.

LORD CHAMPION

Make it for me.

EARL JELLICOE

Yes, I will do so. One could argue that conservation works may be necessary under this Bill in order to achieve objects of national policy—such as the movement of industry to areas of unemployment, or the movement of people to overspill areas. We hear a great deal these days about growth points and growth areas, and we had a very interesting speech on this subject from my noble friend Lord Eccles only a week or so ago. I would concede that if we are going to stimulate growth deliberately in certain areas of this country, part of the essential infra-structure must include important conservation works to safeguard the water resources of those areas. But if there is a case for grant here—and I concede that there may be—it seems to me that it would be better and more cleanly provided under legislation governing the policy in question, just as at the present time grant is payable in certain special cases for public water supply.

To summarise my argument at this stage, I suggest that we should be very careful indeed before departing from the principle, which I think is a good principle, and with which I do not think noble Lords as a whole would disagree—the principle of making water conservation self-supporting. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, himself would, I think, accept that in the vast majority of cases that is the right principle. I should think otherwise if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that there was a clear need for Exchequer subsidy here, but I submit that this is not the case. I would certainly submit that it is not the case when one is dealing with a poor area, which may well be directed to export water to another, richer area—poorer in water but richer in financial resources—because there is provision in the Bill for that area to pay in that sort of case.

I think we must remember (and this, I think, was an argument which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, employed in talking about opening the flood-gates) that if we allow for Exchequer subsidies in the cases which we now think will be exceptional, the exceptional tends soon to become the rule; and if we provide for subsidies here we shall certainly diminish the ability of the Exchequer to make subsidies available in fields where they are very possibly, or very arguably, more necessary. For those reasons, I suggest to your Lordships that this Amendment should be resisted.

9.17 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

I cannot, of course, be satisfied with the noble Earl's reply. It is true that the Government have been perfectly consistent throughout the whole of the discussions on this Bill, and in the White Paper. I would remind the noble Earl that Emerson said that A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I suggest that the Government are looking at this through very little minds indeed. I think they are consistent, but quite wrong. If I did not think that, I should not have moved the Amendment.

It is true, as the noble Earl said, that water users, or potential water users, at present pay for conservation. Of course, they do that only to meet the immediate need, or the need of the immediate future. But what we are doing in this Bill, it seems to me, is seeking to conserve water for a use which is not immediate. That is why I think we should make provision for that sort of case. I thought that the noble Earl's semi-hypothetical case, as he put it, was a perfect argument in favour of the Amendment which I moved on this matter. The noble Earl said that I might have made use of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Eccles, made. I must admit that I had it very much in mind. I marked this passage in his speech, because I thought it was an extremely important one. The fact that I did not overlook his speech is made fairly clear; I quoted it in the debate on the Coal Industry Bill last week. But I felt that there was a limit to the extent to which I could become the noble Lord's public relations officer; there are limits to the amount of advertising that I am prepared to do on behalf of any noble Lord.

But I am bound to say that I tremendously welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh. It would be impertinent of me to comment on his speech. I can only welcome it as being in support. I do not want to withdraw this Amendment yet. I feel that there is something more to be said, and if anything I have said in my reply has stimulated someone to get up and support me, I shall find it very welcome indeed.

EARL JELLICOE

I should like to have the chance. The noble Lord has stimulated me to reply to at least one point which he made just now, and I should like to deal with it. That was his view that we should not be shortsighted here. Here I would entirely agree: we must look to the future. We cannot have regard only to the immediate needs of the country for water conservation schemes. That I would concede; but I would not necessarily concede that we need therefore make provision for Exchequer subsidy. For example, in many other fields we look to the future. When a new power station is built in this country, the Central Electricity Generating Board are very foolish if they do not see to it that surplus capacity is not built into that power station. Of course, they build surplus capacity into it; but the consumers pay for that surplus capacity. Again, absolutely the same principle applies, as I understand it, with the Post Office. If the Post Office are planning a new telephone exchange, they do not necessarily build an exchange which is suitable for our telephone service subscribers in 1962: they plan for the future—but the subscribers pay. Again, the same principle applies, I think, sometimes, nearer home—indeed, to our own homes. There we plan for the future. If we are building a new home, we sometimes build a new nursery on to it even if we do not have children at the time, or, possibly, even a wife.

LORD LINDGREN

The noble Earl will forgive me, but there are limits, and one depends upon one's age.

EARL JELLICOE

I would agree. But I do think that this factor of the principle of intelligent anticipation, if I may so call it, applies in a great many fields, but does not necessarily carry with it, I would urge, the absolute need for Exchequer subsidy.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

May I add one word before we go to a division of shouts? I quite agree with the noble Earl. The general principle which he expounds is quite good; but may I remind him that from 1948, so far as I can recall, when the River Boards Bill was passed, the Government retained the power to make grants in appropriate cases. They were not obliged to, and presumably the river board had to satisfy the Minister first and later the Treasury before they got a grant at all. The grants have been large and they have been small. So far as I can recall, over the fourteen years there have been many deputations from here, there and somewhere else to the Treasury or the Minister, telling the Treasury or the Minister that the grant was not enough, but I do not think the noble Earl will recall one occasion when there has been any sizeable outcry about a grant or no grant. All we are asking for is that the river authority to begin with, the Water Resources Board secondly, and the Minister finally, feel that this is a special case of its kind, and really deserves some modest encouragement. That is all we are asking for. We do not want to destroy the basic principle enunciated by the noble Earl, but we should like a bit more favour at half-past nine at night on an Amendment such as this.

EARL JELLICOE

Before we go to a division, of shouts or otherwise, I should like to say, with regard to the discussion on this important point, the significance of which I think I was very willing to recognise, that I should welcome the chance of considering the arguments which have been advanced by noble Lords opposite. I am not at this stage at all convinced by them, but I will consider them, without promising anything, between now and the Report stage.

LORD CHAMPION

I am afraid that I have to accede to the blandishments of the noble Earl. Once again he has shown the remarkable mastery of handling the Committee that he showed formerly through the passage of this Committee stage. I envy him this capacity, but I must not continue in this vein for too long. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 82 to 95 agreed to.

Clause 96 [Default powers]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is purely a drafting Amendment to correct a minor error of grammar.

Amendment moved— Page 79, line 42, leave out ("may transfer") and insert ("transferring").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 97 agreed to.

Clause 98 [Reports and accounts]:

LORD HASTINGS

The Amendment makes clear that this is a reference to any direction given to the Board and not, for example, to river authorities generally. It is purely a clarification. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 30, after ("given") insert ("to the Board").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to.

Clause 101 [Power to take samples of effluents]:

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment together with Amendments 124G and 124H have a common purpose, which is to make it clear that notices about, and samples of, effluent taken by the river authority, as prevention of pollution authority, from a vessel are to be sent to the owner or master of the vessel. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 85, line 18, after ("or") insert ("the owner or master of the")

line 23, after ("or") insert ("the owner or master of the")

line 28, at end insert ("the owner or master of the").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

This is purely a drafting Amendment which is necessary in view of the definition of "local authority sewer" in Clause 117 (3), which will be effected by a subsequent Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 85, line 37, leave out from ("authority") to ("by") in line 38.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 102 [Power to require information]:

LORD HASTINGS

This Amendment is re-enactment. Section 9 (5) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961, which dealt with certain extensions of river board area for the purpose of the powers of the river board under Section 9 (8) of the River Boards Act, 1948, and Section 15 of that Act is repealed by the Bill. The substance of the section needs to be applied, however, to river authorities, and this is carried out by the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 86, line 5, at end insert ("or into any waters falling within paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

Subsection (2) of Clause 102 as it stands in the Bill at the present time is too sweeping. The effect of the Amendment is to reduce the powers conferred by the subsection to those available to river boards now. Those boards have power to require the furnishings of certain information about effluents which need their consent under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961. The extent of the information they can demand is prescribed in regulations made under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1961. The clause as drafted would empower them to demand such information in respect of all effluents. The revised subsection restricts the power to the effluents dealt with in the Act of 1961. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 86, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ("(2) In the case of a person who has applied to a river authority for any consent required by the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961, the information required by directions under the preceding subsection may include any particulars prescribed by regulations under Section 3 (1) of that Act.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 103 to 106 agreed to.

Clause 107 [Service of documents]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is little more than drafting. It introduces into Clause 107, dealing with the service of documents, an obviously desirable provision, on the lines of Section 19 (1) of the River Boards Act, 1948, to make clear that notices to be given by or to a river authority are to be in writing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 89, line 30, at end insert— ("(5) Any notice which is required or authorised by or under this Act or any other enactment to be given, served or issued by or to a river authority shall be in writing.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 108 to 112 agreed to.

Clause 113 [Provision as to Rivers Esk and Tweed]:

LORD HASTINGS

This is a drafting Amendment. Line 29 in Clause 113 serves no useful purpose, since subsection (1), to which it refers, deals with fishing and in no way affects subsection (3), which deals with the "new" functions of river authorities. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, leave out line 29.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 114 agreed to.

Clause 115 [Repeal, amendment and adaptation of local enactments.]

9.34 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add after subsection (4): (5) Nothing in this section shall enable the Minister to vary any provisions for the discharge of compensation water made by or under any statute without the consent of all persons for whose benefit any such provisions have been made.

The noble Viscount said: I know that the provisions of Clause 115, which enable the Minister, if he thinks that any Local Act is going to impede the process of this Bill, to repeal or amend or adapt that particular measure, is something of a standard in this sort of enactment. Nevertheless, there may be somewhat unusual circumstances in this field. There may be occasions—I confess that I do not know of any specific examples, but I am sure that they must exist—where provisions of some Local Act have protected specifically some riparian owner or somebody of that nature, when, for the sake of argument, a reservoir was built by perhaps a statutory water undertaker and special provision was put into the Local Act which allowed enough compensation water to come down the river below the reservoir at all times, perhaps to drive the machinery in his mill or for some similar purpose. It may have been for the protection of one individual, or a company or some institution which will be continuing to this day and who still have the advantage of the special protection given them by the Local Act.

Nowadays the advances in the knowledge of water resources and so on may have made it possible to relax, to some degree, the statutory provision for a permanent flow of compensation water. It may be that it would be suitable that the water should come down only in the daytime and not at night-time, or that it should come down during weekdays and not at the week-end, and that the person for whom the Local Act provided protection is agreeable to some changes taking place in the provisions so as to allow the minimum acceptable flow in the river to come up to the standard Which is thought to be suitable. Nevertheless, I think it would not be right for the Minister to have quite such sweeping powers as he seems to have in the Bill. He can, it seems to me, without any form of consultation with, or consent of, any such person as I have mentioned alter the special protection given by a Local Act entirely to suit his purpose or to suit the purpose of a river authority.

The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to require him, before he repeals or amends or adapts the Local Act, if it affects the compensation water which has been allowed to some person under Statute, to consult with that person first. I do not think this would be an unreason-able requirement to lay on the Minister. He would probably do it anyway, but I would rather have the statutory provision put in the Bill to make certain that he does. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 41, at end insert the said aragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

9.44 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

I regret that I shall not be able to speak either as briefly or as lucidly to this Amendment as my noble friend has done in moving it. It has seemed to me a far more complicated matter than it sounded as he spoke on it, and if it is any satisfaction to him it has caused me a considerable amount of thought in the last few days.

This Amendment seeks to incorporate in Clause 115 (which confers power for the repeal, amendment or adaptation by ministerial order of local enactments inconsistent with the provision's of the Bill or anything done or any order made under the Bill) a provision which would secure that no order was made to vary any provisions for the discharge of compensation water without the consent of all persons for whose benefit any such provisions had been made in the local enactment in question. Before I address myself to the intention of my noble friend's Amendment, I must digress for a moment in order to persuade him that his intention is not apposite to this particular clause. Although Clause 115 provides an order-making power which will be available for the purpose of varying provisions contained in any local enactment relating to compensation water, it is not the primary means by which variations in compensation water will be effected. If my noble friend will forgive me, I will first direct my attention to those primary means and then go on to consider the point he has raised. To do this I shall need to recall one or two paints from clauses already passed.

First, your Lordships will recall that for the future (that is, after the end of the "initial period" when the licensing system begins), impounding will, except as provided in Clause 36 (3) need the river authority's licence. This licence will include such requirements as to the provision of compensation water as the authority—or, on appeal, the Minister—considers appropriate, and any such licence will be subject to revocation or variation under the provisions of Clauses 41 to 43. Then your Lordships will recall that Clause 36 (3) gives to those local enactments authorising the impounding of water which remain in force after the end of the initial period the title "alternative statutory provisions". The authorisation to impound water under any such alternative statutory provision is, by virtue of Clause 46 (1) to be treated as a licence for the purposes of Clauses 41 to 43. This means that any such authorisation (called in Clause 46 "the relevant authorisation") will be subject to variation or revocation just as a licence to impound first granted under the Bill would be. By this means it will fall to a river authority to provide if necessary for the discharge of compensation water in amounts and at times which differ from those required by the "relevant authorisation".

These, in practice, are the powers which river authorities will use. But it must be acknowledged that their use may still leave the need for amendment of the local enactments which conferred the relevant authorisation—if only for the purpose of adapting such enactment so as to bring them into accord with the action taken by the river authority. This is, under the clause to which my noble friend has addressed himself, a tidying-up and consolidating process. Provisions contained in local enactments with respect to the discharge of compensation water are unfortunately often quite complex, and they may be found in interlinked or interacting provisions contained in a whole series of Local Acts and statutory orders. There must be some means of keeping such local enactments intelligible and up to date, taking account of anything done in the performance of functions under the Bill. Clause 115 is included in the Bill for that purpose. It is a necessary provision: but as I have already explained it is not (if I am right in my view of the real purpose of the Amendment) the main provision to which my noble friend's attention should be directed. I felt it was necessary to make this clear before answering my noble friend's main purpose in proposing this Amendment.

The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent, in the context of Clause 115, variation of compensation water provisions except with the consent of all those for whose benefit the provisions had been made. The wording of this Amendment runs closely with proviso (a) to Section 33 (1), of the Water Act, 1945, which confers on the Minister of Housing and Local Government powers to vary local enactments relating to statutory water undertakings. This is appropriate where the protection of lower riparian interests against the effect of an impounding of water must rest on the discharge of compensation water and where nothing else is at stake. But this is no longer so. We are coming to a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has stressed earlier in the deliberations of the Committee, economy of water for the general good must be earnestly pursued. Moreover, we are coming to a time when some reservoirs are likely to be built not to remove water permanently from a river, but rather to allow it to flow down them in a controlled manner. If we are going to effect such comprehensive and planned regulation of our rivers, then clearly the unco-ordinated ad hoc practices of the past must be overtaken and revised where the wider pattern of control demands it.

Quite often the compensation water provisions are such that a statutory water undertaking is required to discharge compensation water in a uniform quantity day in and day out, without regard to conditions in the river to which the water is discharged. There are many examples of compensation water being discharged under a statutory obligation even though the river is in spate. I venture to suggest that the interests of the lower riparian owners might be better served by a diminution of flow at such times rather than by its augmentation with compensation water. Such arrangements—and they are not uncommon—are wasteful of water and benefit nobody, least of all the lower riparian owners.

After river authorities have set about their work, in due time they will begin to regulate the flow of rivers, by building regulating reservoirs and other works. During this period the condition of the water in rivers should improve as a result of the operation of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts. Accordingly, the need to maintain compensation water provisions exactly as they were enacted will be much reduced. One might remember that many of these provisions emerged from a bargaining process as long ago as the last century when our knowledge of river behaviour was much less than it is to-day. We are going to become much more knowledgeable about rivers; and our ability accurately to predict river flow and behaviour is going to improve. As it does so we shall see more clearly where economy of water can be secured without harm to anyone. Then it will be highly desirable—indeed necessary—that these compensation water provisions should be capable of variation.

It must he recognised that if we are to conserve and manage water successfully, and if we are to meet the growing demands for water with due economy, we must have the requisite powers. These must include power to vary the present compensation water arrangements which, as I have sought to show, are sometimes wasteful and often could be altered without doing any harm at all to the interests affected. It must be made possible to make such changes where this appears to the Minister to be necessary or desirable. The Amendment of my noble friend would effectively prevent this since it would enable one intransigent individual effectively to prevent the optimum use of water resources, possibly to substantial public detriment, even though it might well be shown that the individual's interest, far from being prejudiced, would be fully safeguarded and perhaps supplemented.

On this ground I must invite the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment both on this general ground and on the point which I mentioned at the beginning. If this Bill is to achieve success and enable us to have the intelligent and economical management of water resources which users of all sorts desire, then the provisions of the Bill in this particular should be allowed to stand as they now are.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very grateful for the fruits of my noble friend's thought. It occurs to me, however, to ask him in what way the Bill as it is now drafted protects the interests of the people whom I am envisaging in my Amendment as requiring protection. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I have failed to understand this, as I must confess I had not realised there was quite so much of relevance to this point in Clauses 41 and 46, and so on. If I am right in my rapid reading of the previous clauses of the Bill, it seems to me that this is the situation. The statutory water undertaker who is now authorised by a Local Act to impound water does not himself fall subject to the restrictions in Clause 36 (1), but he may be subject to a variation or revocation of a deemed licence by virtue of Clause 46.

If he is subject to a revocation or a variation he is put in the same position as any other licence holder whose licence is being revoked or varied, and he will have a right of appeal under Clause 44 to the Minister; at any rate he will be put in the same position as a licence holder whose licence is being revoked. I do not understand that the person who is protected under a Local Act in respect of his compensation water will have a like right of appeal to the Minister, so that his protection under the Local Act will be before the tribunal which decides whether or not it is a good revocation or variation. I can see no protection whatever in the Bill which will give this third party the right of appeal to the Minister.

Then to go on to Clause 115, the noble Lord very rightly said that some of the compensation provisions of these Local Acts are out of date. That is what I said in my speech in moving the Amendment. I did not for a moment deny that some of them may have to be amended or revoked. All I am asking is that something should be written into the Bill so that the person specifically given protection under a Local Act should have some say in the matter and it is not left to a pact between the Minister and the river authority to deal with his interests in his absence. Surely there must be some protection for a person to whom Parliament has already given protection in respect of compensation water. I am not trying to put a veto on the Minister's powers to bring the procedure up to date, but I do think the person in that position should be given some rights.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

It is all very well for the noble Viscount to say he is not putting a veto on the Minister's powers, but surely the wording of the Amendment is doing that. He is not moving an Amendment to say these people should be consulted or their rights taken into consideration; he puts it roundly that the Minister cannot do these things without their consent, and their consent may be most unreasonably withheld. If my noble friend had used the word "consult" or some such word instead of "consent", I think the Committee might have had more sympathy with him; but the word "consent" I, for one, cannot go along with.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I entirely agree with my noble friend. I think probably my Amendment goes too far, and I think consultation or some inquiry or hearing by the person appointed by the Minister would be more appropriate. It may be I have drafted it too severely, but I still think there are merits in the principle I have sought to put.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My noble friend Lord Waldegrave brought out the point which had bothered me. It is clear from this speech and from this later intervention that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross intended to provide consultation, but what he in fact was providing in his Amendment was something much stronger than consultation and something which we find it very difficult, indeed impossible, to accept. I should like to speak to him about this in the new light of what he has said, but for the moment, perhaps, I can content him if I tell him that riparian are now protected by the minimum acceptable flow provisions to which every new river authority must have regard in making proposals for their licences, which are included in Clause 42 (6). In so far as procedure is concerned, which is I believe the matter that interests my noble friend, I think that he has something; I think he has a point in saying that some form of procedure should be recognised and written into the Bill. To that extent, if he will allow me to say so, I think he has made a very useful contribution which I, for one, will certainly follow up, and I shall be grateful for the opportunity to speak to him about it later.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall be only too glad if same method can be found by which this can be included in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 115 agreed to.

Clause 116 [Regulations and orders]:

9.55 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: moved, in subsection (5), after "that is to say—" to insert: (a) any order under section 3 of this Act not being an order which falls within paragraph (a) of the next succeeding subsection".

The noble Lord said: Your Lordships know that Clause 116 deals with orders and regulations under this Bill, and the object of my Amendment is to bring under Affirmative Resolution the orders which set up river authorities under Clause 3 of the Bill. As your Lordships know, the form of these authorities will vary from authority to authority; the number of members can vary from between 21 to 31, and the number of people representing each of the various interests—industry, fisheries and agriculture—will vary from authority to authority. If the Minister is bringing in an order for an authority which has over 31 members, then it is subject to the Negative Resolution precedure of Parliament. In the ordinary case, as I understand it, Parliament would have no say in these orders. Although I realise that before the orders are brought in there will be a great deal of consultation with all the various interests concerned, I think that the form of the river authorities is most important and may be controversial, and the orders that bring them into effect should be subject to some Resolution of Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 17, at end insert the new paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

EARL JELLICOE

It is, of course, true that when the river boards were originally set up two orders were required in each case. The first dealt with the area of the river board, and this could be carried to Special Parliamentary Procedure. I have already explained at an earlier stage that the circumstances are quite different now from what they were in 1948. Then the setting up of the areas for the new river boards (as they then were) was a major operation, and a first time operation at that, in a great many parts of this country. Now, relatively small changes are proposed in the areas concerned, and where we are suggesting changes it is quite clear, from a glance at the Amendments down to Schedule 1 of this Bill, that we shall have plenty of Parliamentary discussion.

It was further laid down in 1948 that orders were also required for the actual constitution of the river boards. The order was to be made after the usual stately minuet of consultation, preparation of draft orders, advertisement, objection, public inquiry and so on; but the decision of the Ministers as to the actual constitution was thereafter to be finial. Again, I think one should remember, in deciding whether the procedure which my noble friend has suggested is appropriate, that the River Boards Act made much less precise provision for the constitution of the river boards than Part II of the Bill does for the new constitution of the river authorities. As noble Lords will see from a glance at Clauses 6 to 8, the size of the authorities and their detailed composition is in fact provided for in this Bill. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney recognised, as a result of the Amendment to Clause 3 which I moved at an earlier stage in this Committee, Ministers will now be under a specific obligation to consult the persons and the representative bodies concerned before making the order constituting a particular river authority. However, as he said, if the Ministers consider that exceptional circumstances justify an authority larger than 31 members, the resulting order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I cannot, in those circumstances, recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment. It really does not, as I see it, seem to be justified by the circumstances with which we are now dealing—the circumstances of 1962.

Moreover, it might well have the effect of delaying still further the "second appointed day", the day when the authorities will begin to function. We might have to find time to debate up to some twenty constitutional orders. If this were really necessary time could, and would, be found. But the Ministers will be giving effect to Parliament's intentions as prescribed in Clauses 6 to 8, which we have already worked over very closely and will be working over again no doubt, as will another place, and very possibly after prolonged debate here and in another place in regard to the areas prescribed in the First Schedule. Only where in the light of exceptional circumstances they wish to depart from the normal formula will they be required under the Bill, as it stands, to submit their decision to Parliamentary scrutiny. In the circumstances of 1962, which I would repeat seem to me to be very different from those of 1948 in this respect, I should have thought that that was about as far as it was reasonable to go. In the circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will not feel constrained to press this Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I listened very carefully to what my noble friend had to say. Would it be possible for him to consider whether these orders should come under the Negative Resolution procedure? I think that possibly what I have asked for in my Amendment goes too far. As the noble Earl has said, it would mean that all these various orders would have to be debated before they were passed. Would he consider—because I do feel that these orders are important—whether they could be subject to annulment by Resolution of either House or Parliament—in fact under the Negative Resolution procedure?

EARL JELLICOE

My noble friend is putting a new point to me. I feel that, with all the safeguards which we have written into this Bill in this respect, and in particular the Amendment which I moved to Clause 3, the procedure we have provided is adequate. I confess that I am a little unwilling to concede this point.

LORD CHAMPION

Does not subsection (6) cover this: an order under Section 3 shall be subjec to annulment— which is the Negative Resolution procedure?

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

Surely that is where the board consists of more than 31 members.

EARL JELLICOE

I think that my noble friend is quite right. It is designed to cover the exceptional circumstances where we feel that more than 31 members are required. I should have thought that only in those exceptional circumstances is this procedure justified. Of course I will undertake to consider what the noble Lord has said, particularly his last suggestion, but I think it would be wrong for me to hold out any real hope that I will meet him on this point.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to my noble friend. I do not intend to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116 agreed to.

Clause 117 [Interpretation]:

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), after the interpretation of "additional members," to insert: 'agriculture' shall have the same meaning as that set out in subsection (1) of section 119 of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, and 'agricultural' shall be construed accordingly".

The noble Viscount said: I think that it is a defect in this Bill that it contains no definition of the words "agriculture" or "agricultural". It is important in this respect, because under Clause 24 a person whose land adjoins inland water is allowed without a licence to abstract water from that inland waterway for the purpose of agriculture, unless he wants it for spray irrigation. So, too, if a farmer has a well he is protected by Clause 58 (4), and he will not be subject to any charging scheme in respect of water that he abstracts from his well for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation. He will have to pay a licence fee, but he will not be subject to the charging scheme.

There have been various definitions in Acts of Parliament of the word "agriculture". There is one in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, Section 2, and there is another in Section 119 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I think it might be very difficult, in view of the fact that Parliament has specified a definite meaning for "agriculture" in those other two Acts of Parliament, for the courts to interpret with any degree of certainty the word as it is used in this Bill, without any definition. My noble friend Lord Hastings said last week, when we were talking about Clause 25, that "agriculture", in his view, meant horticulture and various other similar things, such as osier-growing, and various matters that are dealt with in Section 119 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act. The definition that I have chosen does not include forestry, and it occurs to me to wonder whether perhaps it should. Nevertheless, I feel that, as the Bill stands at the moment, the horticulturist is liable to find himself outside the exemptions in this Bill; and it is the same with the other varieties of agriculture which are normally grouped within that class for an Act of Parliament of this nature. I therefore think that some definition of "agriculture" should go in the interpretation section of this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 96, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

EARL WALDEGRAVE

Before the noble Lord replies to this Amendment, I am a little disturbed to hear from the mover that such a definition would not include forestry, because obviously what we are trying to make quite clear here is that irrigation or watering of crops, whether they be osiers or watercress—which was talked of the other night—and so on, is covered in the definition section of this Bill. It would seem that it may be necessary to consider some other definition of "agriculture" than the one in the Amendment, if that particular definition does not include forestry, which covers growing plants and seeds, nursery gardens and so on.

LORD ST. OSWALD

Without any doubt at all, the point raised by my noble friend needs to be looked at. But I will say merely that this particular Amendment is not quite appropriate, since by the time the Bill is enacted the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, will be in force; and if there is to be a reference to the definition in a planning Act (and this in itself is something that will have to be looked at) it will need to be a reference to Section 221 of the Act of 1962. Quite clearly we must go into this, and see that a reference to a definition of "agriculture" is written into this Bill. I give an undertaking that when we have found the answer it will appear again in the form of a Government Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am very grateful to my noble friend. I chose this because it was a definition I knew well. I think it would probably cover my noble friend Lord Waldegrave's tree nurseries, but it might not cover the trees when they were a bit bigger. But I shall be very glad to see what my noble friend Lord St. Oswald can produce on Report stage, and, subject to what my noble friend Lord Albemarle says, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

In order to save time, I should like to raise the subject—I gave written notice, because I had intended to put down an Amendment, but I may be able to save time by saying this now—of the definition of the word "wholesome". This Bill was discussed by experts at a recent conference of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and it was pointed out that "wholesome" is not defined anywhere in this great Bill but is the subject of the opinion of any individual medical officer of health of a local authority. I do not think that can really he allowed to go on any longer, and I hope my noble friend agrees. The other thing is this: a statutory authority has, by law, to give wholesome water.

EARL WALDEGRAVE

With great respect, may I suggest that this would Come more appropriately on the Question whether the clause stand part? I myself have a point that I should like to raise on the Question whether the clause stand part. I think this can hardly be discussed by the Committee on the question of the definition of "agriculture".

LORD ST. OSWALD

I think my noble friend Lord Waldegrave is right here. Whatever written notification has been given by my noble friend Lord Albemarle it has not, unfortunately, reached me; but if my noble friend is withdrawing his Amendment then perhaps we can get on with these other matters under the Question whether the clause stand part.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.12 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), in the interpretation of "inland water", after "watercourse" to insert "or canal" The noble Viscount said: This is not quite so naïve an Amendment as it might seem from its wording. The purpose of it is this. Under the Transport Act, which your Lordships passed last Session, the Inland Waterways Commission was given the power to sell water out of its canals to industrialists aft a certain charge which it could impose upon them in order, partly, at any rate, to make a canal pay its way. I have no idea at the moment whether or not the inland Waterways Commission will have to pay to the river authority under the charging scheme for the water which it puts into its canal; and, further, I have no idea, as the Bill is at present drafted, whether the Inland Waterways Commission having paid under that charging scheme, the industrialist who has already paid the Inland Waterways Commission to extract water from the canal will have to pay a further charge to the river authority for that water under the charging scheme in this Bill. Therefore I thought it ought to be made quite clear, one way or the other, whether an inland water, in the definition of this Bill, did include or did not include a canal run in these circumstances by the Inland Waterways Commission.

It may be, I am afraid, that the way I have put down this Amendment has not made this point altogether clear to my noble friends on the Front Bench, and, if it has not, I will forgive them if they cannot give me an answer this evening. However, it would, I think, be a relief to those who have entered into an arrangement for a considerable supply of water from the canals to know where they stand in this particular matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 96, line 24, after ("watercourse") insert ("or canal").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD ST. OSWALD

Until a moment ago I had hoped I might persuade my noble friend that his Amendment was unnecessary. I have now abandoned that idea. I should like to point out, since it is speaking to the point of the Amendment, though not the central point, that the definition of "inland water"—that is to say, the wider definition within which watercourse is included—embraces …so much of any river, stream or other watercourse, whether natural or artificial as is within any of the river authority areas. A watercourse is defined in this clause as including rivers, streams, ditches, drains, culverts, dykes, sluices, sewers and passages through which water flows. That is the definition as in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the Water Act, 1945. We had thought it was complete. On the other hand, the point raised by my noble friend on the matter of double payment has been in the manner of enfilade fire, and I would, if he will permit me, offer to look into it, and let him know what we discover and possibly it will require some alteration or addition to the Bill.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to my noble friend. I am sorry that the message I attempted to get through to him as to the purport of this Amendment did not reach him in time. However, I have the greatest confidence in his researches before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HASTINGS

This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 43, at end insert ("a sewerage authority and 'sewerage authority' means any of the following, that is to say").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS moved, after subsection (4), to insert:

Page 99, line 14, at end insert— ( ) Except in so far as this Act otherwise expressly provides, and subject to the provisions of section 33 of the Interpretation Act 1889 (which relates to offences under two or more laws) the restrictions imposed by sections 23, 36, 68 and 71 of this Act, or by byelaws made by virtue of section 72 of this Act, shall not be construed as—

1. (a) conferring a right of action in any civil proceedings (other than proceedings for the recovery of a fine) in respect of any contravention of those restrictions, or
2. (b) affecting any restriction imposed by or under any other enactment, whether contained in a public general Act or in a local or private Act, or
3. (c) derogating from any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal) in proceedings instituted otherwise than under this Act."

The noble Lord said: This is the last wicket and, as it is a Government Amendment, I am hoping I am not to be bowled out but will be allowed to carry my bat. It is rather an abstruse point on a legal matter and the Amendment is designed to avoid any doubt about rights of action under Statute and at Common Law. The "restrictions" to which the Amendment refers are those against abstraction without licence; impounding without licence; discharge of effluent to underground strata; boring without consent; and include by-laws for protection of water against pollution. Contravention of any of these restrictions is a criminal offence for which the penalty is prescribed under the Bill. The Amendment says, first, that the restrictions are not to be construed as giving any right of civil action in respect of a contravention (except that there may be proceedings for recovery of a fine). Second, nothing in these restrictions affects any restrictions imposed in or under another enactment, public or local or private. Third, nothing in these restrictions is to derogate from any right of action or remedy otherwise than under the Bill. Similar provision has been made in other enactments imposing restrictions of a parallel kind, for example, the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960.

If the Amendment were not moved into the Bill it would, for example, be doubtful whether, if a person were to abstract water under the Bill without licence when the Bill required him to have one, other users of the same source of supply would be entitled to a right of action against him under the Bill in reliance purely on the breach of statutory duty. The Amendment makes it clear by paragraph (a) that no such right is to exist. On the other hand, by virtue of paragraph (c), any right of action or other remedy (whether civil or criminal) available otherwise than for breach of the statutory duty—for example, a right of action at Common Law in respect of infringement of riparian rights—is left untouched by the restrictions imposed by Clauses 23, 36, 68 and 71 of the Bill or by the by-laws under Clause 72.

The new subsection is for the purpose of removing any doubts that might otherwise arise about the effect produced by imposing the new statutory restrictions I have mentioned. It is not concerned with the effect produced by other provisions of the Bill. Thus, although the right of a riparian owner to take action in respect of any sensible diminution of the flow of water past his riparian tenement is unaffected by the restrictions imposed by Clause 23, it may be affected by the protection afforded to licence-holders by Clause 31. The effect of paragraph (b) in the Amendment is to make plain that the Bill stands on its own and does not touch in any way upon other restrictions, such as, for example, the need to obtain planning permission to construct works associated with a borehole where the Town and Country Planning Acts would so require it. I trust that this has not been too confusing to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 99, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 117, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

EARL WALDEGRAVE

May I ask the noble Earl to look at one point before he comes back? I apologise to the noble Earl for not putting down an Amendment on this point, but I think that I can do it on the Question that the clause stand part. The definition of spray irrigation is …the irrigation of land or plants (including seeds) by means of water or other liquid emerging (in whatever form) from apparatus designed or adapted to eject liquid into the air in the form of jets or spray;". I wonder whether this definition would not cover pesticides, weed-killers and sprays of that sort, which I do not think are intended to be covered. I do not want to make a speech at this stage, but would ask the noble Earl whether he would look at this definition and be quite clear that the Government are not catching something that they do not intend to catch in this Bill.

EARL JELLICOE

I wonder whether I could cover the point raised by my noble friend Lord Albemarle at the same time. Of course, I will undertake to have a look at the point on spray irrigation about which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave has just asked me. Clearly, we do not want to spray anything we do not intend to spray. I am in slight difficulty on the point regarding "wholesome", of which my noble friend gave me notice. The difficulty here is that, so far as I know—I speak subject to correction "wholesome" does not appear in the Bill, and I think that it would be ultra vires for the draftsman to try to define the meaning of a word which does not appear. I think that what my noble friend is after is that we should seek a definition of a word which appears in the Water Act, 1945. I am inclined to think that it would not be within the scope of the Long Title of this Bill, because it does not include an Amendment to the 1945 Act. All this is extremely recondite (I hardly understand it myself), and I should like to look at my noble friend's point. But, as I am advised at present, that is the difficulty.

Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

I think that we have reached the stage of the Bill which we agreed to aim at for this evening, and therefore I beg to 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.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.