Lords Sitting of 14 February 1963

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

"WORKING TO RULE"
3.5 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords: I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the electricity supply industry and the public have recently suffered from the practice called "working to rule"; whether those who indulged in this practice were in fact obeying the rules governing their employment; and, if so, why the employers keep in existence rules which they hope that the men will not obey.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD DERWENT): My Lords, the work-to-rule during the three weeks up to January 20 by a small minority of employees of the Electricity Boards was a major factor in the London area in reducing the supply of electricity and in causing inconvenience to the public. However, the great majority of the men gave service far in excess of what could reasonably be expected of them in conditions of great hardship caused by extreme weather. The rules of the industry necessary for the efficient and proper operation of plant and the safety of employees and the public were observed in the normal way, but there was nothing to suggest that generally it was the rigid application of these rules that caused the trouble. The minority taking part in the miscalled "work-to-rule", however, deliberately withheld the necessary cooperation which usually exists between men and management.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which deserves careful study?
1060
Do the Government agree that it would be inexcusable for employers to keep in existence rules which they hope the men will not obey; and have Her Majesty's Government satisfied themselves by inquiry that the electricity supply industry, whatever other faults it may have, is not guilty of this absurdity?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the answer to both my noble friend's questions is, Yes.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that in many industries—I think of my own industry, the railway industry, although it applies in electricity and many others—employers, as a result of the old employers' liability legislation, place on the shoulders of the worker the responsibility of making the decision whether he is taking a risk or not, and are therefore hiding behind a rule? On the railways, a shunter should walk all the way round the train instead of going underneath the couplings; a guard should test every door of a train before it moves. It is true that in the electricity industry there are many rules which, if a worker observed them strictly and did not use his own initiative as to when it was safe to break them or not, would mean that the work would not be done as efficiently and effectively as it might be. Rule books ought to be revised by employers, now that we have the Industrial Injuries Act, which has undermined much of the old employers' liability legislation.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I can see nothing about railways in the original Question. We are advised that the rules by which the electricity power stations work are for the men's safety, and we hope they will be obeyed.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I want to say nothing in defence of people who use working to rule for the purpose of mischief and obstructing industrial production, but did not the Chairman of the Central Electricity Board say on television that the unofficial factor was an important but a minor consideration in the upsetting of supplies to the public? The noble Lord in his Answer seems to have said both things: that it was an important factor, and that it was an unimportant factor. Is there not something in the original Question of the noble Lord indicating that these

1061
rules need looking at, to see whether they are necessary and right in the circumstances or whether they are overdone and possibly asking for trouble at a moment of industrial stress? I do not prejudge upon it, but is this not a question which arises?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, although I did not see it, I think the television interview to which the noble Lord is referring dealt with electricity in the country as a whole. This was a matter of London. Perhaps I had better add that there were only a small proportion of the men involved in this non-co-operation. The difficulty was that those men were concentrated in the London area, and the non-co-operation occurred at a time when all plant was needed to meet the unprecedented demand for electricity. In normal winter weather this lack of co-operation would probably have had no effect at all.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the whole question of what rules should be changed, superseded and altered is much best settled between the employers and the trade unions and is a proper subject for their mutual consideration?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. Of course, that is the case. This is not a Government matter. I was trying to answer the Question on the Paper, but it is a matter which should be settled, of course, between the management and the trade unions.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the noble Lord not tell us in quite simple terms whether what he has referred to as the non-cooperative minority were keeping rules or breaking them?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, they were, in fact, keeping the rules. Perhaps it is rather difficult to describe non-co-operation, but it probably varies from what is sometimes known as "playing stupid" to what used to be known in the Army as "dumb insolence".
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, are we to draw the inference that the object of rules is to promote non-co-operation?

WILD BIRD'S EGGS
3.14 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, especially in view of the heavy mortality caused by the hard winter, they will repeal the orders which legalise the taking of the eggs of more than a dozen of our favourite song-birds and garden birds and whether they will do so now, before the coming breeding season.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Advisory Committees for the Protection of Birds have been considering the question of the repeal of these orders in the course of a general review of the working of the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, on which their considered opinion is expected soon. My right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will bring to the attention of the Committees the considerations adduced by my noble friend, together with any information obtainable about the level of mortality.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply, but would proceed to ask him whether it is not a fact that the Advisory Committees have had this matter under consideration for a very long time and whether they have not already expressed a view upon it?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I understand that in 1956 the Advisory Committees in fact submitted recommendations to the effect that these orders should be revoked, but at the time neither of the Secretaries of State concerned found sufficient case for reversing the decision of Parliament.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, could the noble Earl tell us whether the Government are arranging for the birds to defer their breeding season until such time as the Government have arrived at their conclusions?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that is perhaps a question more properly

1063
directed to the birds' family planning association. Nevertheless, they indulge, I understand, in these pleasurable activities over quite a long period of time—from March to October.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will give a little more attention to the second part of my Question, which draws attention to the urgency of this matter? Of course, I am not entitled to say what is the present view of the Advisory Committees, but I would ask whether he has any reason at all to think that they have changed the view which they expressed in 1956? May I also remind him that to-day is February 14, St. Valentine's Day, the official beginning of spring and the date on which a great many birds make dates with one another. If this emergency action is to have any effect in respect of the current breeding season, there is not a day to lose.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the questions which the noble Lord has just directed towards me find a very sympathetic response in my breast, and we are aware that there is urgency in this matter. May I say, too, that anyone who lives in the country, or indeed, in London, is aware of the tragic loss of bird life at the present time.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the favourite song-birds and garden birds of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, are not necessarily those of the much-suffering gardeners of this country?

MINIMUM AGE FOR DIRECTORS
3.18 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, with a view to the reduction of opportunities of fraudulent company promotion, they propose to take action so as to introduce a minimum limit of age in respect of appointment of Directors under the Companies Act.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the question of directors' qualifications is one of the matters which Her Majesty's Government have under consideration in their study of the Report of the Company Law
1064
Committee which was presented last June, and the particular matter to which the noble Lord invites attention will be borne in mind in that connection.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that at Bristol Assizes last week Mr. Justice McKenna, in sentencing a man to one year's imprisonment, drew attention to the fact that the five directors of the company concerned were a man, his wife and three children, the youngest of whom was eight years of age?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am aware of the case at Bristol. The Companies Act makes no provision as to the minimum age of a director, and a minor may, therefore, be appointed a director. But, as I said, this particular matter is one which will be borne in mind when the Report of the Committee is examined.

MALTA DOCKYARD
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Private Notice Question: Whether Her Majesty's Government can make a statement about the dockyard in Malta?
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will answer the noble Earl's Question at half-past three or as soon as possible thereafter.

MARINE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
COUNTY COURTS (JURISDICTION) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 55 [Licence fees]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 are related. The first is a paving Amendment for the other, and it would be, I think, for the convenience of the House to take them together. The Amendments are put down following an undertaking I gave at Committee stage on an Amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Champion and Lord Wise. The Amendments provide for a reduced licence fee to be payable in respect of a licence which authorises the abstraction of water from underground for agricultural purposes, other than spray irrigation, and for no other purpose.
Noble Lords will recall that the abstraction of water from underground by or on behalf of an individual for the domestic purposes of his household is not restricted by the Bill, and he who abstracts from an inland water for agricultural purposes, other than spray irrigation, requires no licence, and therefore is liable to pay neither licence fee nor charge. The abstraction of water for agricultural purposes from underground strata needs to be licensed, however, even if the water is not to be used for spray irrigation, because while the individual quantities involved may not be large they are still large enough to affect other abstracters in certain circumstances
The Bill already provides, in Clause 58 (4), that there will be no charges in respect of water abstracted from underground strata in so far as the water is for use for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation. This Amendment will reduce the abstracter's liability for licence fee to one-fifth of the standard fee. This will mean that he pays £1 where abstracters licensed for other purposes pay £5. Whatever variation may be introduced in the general licence fee, the reduced fee prescribed in this Amendment will vary proportionately. It will remain at one-fifth of the standard fee. I hope that this alteration
1066
may meet the desire of the two noble Lords who moved the original Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 24, after second ("of") insert ("which the amount (subject to subsection (4) of this section) shall be").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I, in one sentence, thank the noble Lord for meeting the point which we raised at an earlier stage?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, to refresh our memory, whether he is still dealing in abstractions or drawings?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Abstractions or drawings, whichever the noble Lord prefers.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, had he been able to be here, would also have wished to thank the noble Lord for meeting the point in question.
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 36, at end insert—
("(4) In respect of any licence under this Act which relates only to the abstraction of water from underground strata for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation, the amount of any fee payable under subsection (1) of this section shall be one-fifth of the amount which would be payable apart from this subsection.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56:
Charging schemes
56.—
(4) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection the following shall be taken to be relevant circumstances, that is to say—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to subsection (4):
"(e) abstraction or impounding of water under a licence of right".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to hear that this is the last Amendment I have down on this Bill, and so it is perhaps pleasant that I can end up on what I hope will be a helpful note to my noble friends on the Front Bench. The purpose of this Amendment is to assist them when they

1067
are considering, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said the other day he would, the question of licences of right, under Clauses 34 and 35 of this Bill, because it is really a cognate point.
As the charging scheme stands at the moment, the Bill gives it only a mere embryo form but it is not impossible to see what the sum effect of charges will be on any one particular drawer or abstracter of water. The only thing that has really been said in this respect was said by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in what I think he meant to be a pacifying sentence on Second Reading, when he said that the sum was likely to be a very few pennies per thousand gallons. This is literally a case in which the penny has taken a long time to drop. The industrialists have been working out what he said and it has occurred to them since that even one penny per thousand gallons might add up to a great many thousands of pounds per year to be paid out under the charging scheme. They feel—and I have no doubt the same thing applies to statutory undertakers and other abstracters or drawers—that where there is an existing licence of right and where sources of water have been tapped in the past, very often at considerable expense, it might be right that these existing sources should pay at a lesser rate than new ones under the charging scheme. At any rate, it is something on the lines on which my noble friend was working on Clauses 34 and 35.
What I have done in moving this Amendment is to suggest that, when it comes to considering charges under Clauses 56 (2), there should be taken into account, as one of the relevant circumstances, the fact that the particular person or series of persons in the river authorities area upon whom the charge is to be made may be considered on their own if they are abstracters or drawers under licence of right, or, indeed, if they have been impounding water under licence of right. This might end up by making a fairer distribution of the charge, whereby these people who have in the past spent money on improving or supplying themselves with sources of water will have to pay rather less in the end under the charging schemes. I do not know whether this suggestion appeals to my noble friends, but I put it forward in the hope that it may be of some assistance
1068
to them. I wonder whether whoever replies may be able to say a little more about these very few pennies, if anything further has been done by way of research on that subject. I know it would allay a little anxiety if people involved could be told.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment, for I believe that under a licence of right there can be many "relevant circumstances" under which a different rate may be charged for abstracting or impounding water. In fact, in the Government White Paper (Cmd. 1693), paragraph 44, it is said, for instance:
"Where an abstracter has himself carried out conservation works there will be a case for a lower rate of charge and perhaps for no charge at all."
As I mentioned to your Lordships last Tuesday, the availability of water for a new factory site was reflected in the price of the land, and therefore the right to abstract water has already been paid for and the industrialist may well have incurred important additional expenditure with regard to pumping of water and so on.
As I said, there may be many "relevant circumstances" under a licence of right. For instance, such industries as light engineering and assembly work, or brick making, need a comparatively small amount of water in relation to their output, while other industries are very large users of water. I will not quote again the words used by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe on Second Reading: they have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and they are in column 1094 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day. But as has been said by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, those words of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, have caused much disquiet in such industries as chemical manufacture, oil refining, pulp, paper and board manufacture, textile manufacturing and finishing, food processing and preservation and iron and steel. Such industries are perturbed on account of possible increased costs of production.
If I may, I should like to stress my point by quoting an example. According

1069
to the 1958 Report of the United Nations Committee on Water for Industrial Use, the amount of water required per unit of production in America is 600,000 gallons per ton of finished steel. At a charge of 1d. per thousand gallons, it will be seen that that represents a production cost item of £2 10s. per ton of steel. In the circumstances, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will agree that there may be many "relevant circumstances" in regard to the question of charges under a licence of right. May I end by quoting the words of Mr. H. E. Hopthrow, who was a member of the Proudman Committee? He said:
"The price and cost that industry can tolerate varies from product to product, depending on qualities and quantities involved".
3.32 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, for explaining so clearly the purpose of this Amendment, because I must say that I was not too certain what precisely lay behind it. There is just one small point that I should like to refer to before dealing with the main argument. It is that licences of right do not, of course, apply to impounding works, but only to abstractions. There is nothing payable in respect of impounding, apart from the licence fee: there are no charges related to impounding works, only to abstractions. That of course is just a minor detail of drafting.
The noble Viscount has said quite frankly that he is trying to introduce a new factor which would secure some preferential treatment in respect of charges levied on holders of licences of right, and I must say straight away that the Government feel that there is no justification for singling out existing abstracters in this way. In the first place, the special position of a holder of a licence of right is recognised by the provision in Clause 59 that he shall pay no interim charges before the charging scheme comes into operation; and by reason of this provision, of course, the present abstracter will have several years of warning before he is required to pay any charges for his water. But while this seems to us justifiable, as a way of cushioning the effect of the Bill at the
1070
outset, a permanent concessionary rate is quite another thing; and we do not think that is desirable or justifiable, because it is a basic principle of the Bill that everybody must contribute towards conservation work, otherwise the national scheme cannot function properly.
I would ask noble Lords to consider for a moment what this Amendment might mean—and I think I am bound to point to Amendment No. 60, which is to be moved presently by Lord Lindgren, which goes a little further and repeats a request he made on Committee stage, that statutory water undertakers should not pay any charge for their licence of right either now or in the future. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross supported the Government's attitude and spoke strongly against that. I am therefore a little surprised that he should now seem to be contradicting himself and supporting an Amendment which I think comes from the point of view of industry, that there should be a substantially reduced charge for a licence of right.
It is quite clear that the bulk of charges, when the charging schemes come into effect, will be based upon what will at that time be licences of right—in other words, the bulk of abstraction of water is something that is with us now, a matter of the present and the past. But future abstractions will not amount to the present abstractions, one would imagine, for a long time to come. Therefore, if we are going to spread charges over the whole of the abstracters, in order to pay for the national conservation work which is deemed to be necessary, those charges would fall, if this Amendment were accepted, largely on new abstractions. And those new abstractions would probably be made by industry and statutory water undertakers and spray irrigators. If the present abstractions were either to be given at much-reduced rates, or exempted altogether, then, by and large, the same people would as a result be paying more for their new abstractions, and they would lose on the swings what they gain on the roundabouts. I think that is broadly the correct picture. We feel that it is much better to bring everybody in when these charging schemes are made, and to apportion the overheads for new

1071
conservation work throughout the whole field.
I hope that my noble friend who moved this Amendment will see the strength of my argument, and will feel that he should not press this Amendment; and I hope perhaps, when we come to Amendment No. 60, that he will not change the views he expressed on a previous occasion. In regard of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale, and also a request by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I do not think I can possibly at this stage go into the details of costs of water for industry, or any other user of water. But I can give an assurance that the matter has been, and is, being studied by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There has been much consultation on this problem, and we shall hope on Third Reading to say something about it which we believe will allay the anxieties that have been expressed to-day.

MALTA DOCKYARD
3.40 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will now reply to the Question put to me earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I will repeat the exact words used by my right honourable friend in reply to a similar Question in another place.
"The House will recollect that in 1958, owing to changes in our naval deployment, it was decided that the Admiralty Dockyard at Malta should be converted and operated as a commercial ship-repairing yard. A long lease was granted to a new Company, Bailey (Malta), Limited, formed for this purpose by C. H. Bailey Limited, of Newport, Monmouthshire. Under agreements with the Company, Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to make loans up to a total of £7¼ million to help meet the cost of the conversion and equipment of the Yard and to provide working capital. Up to date about £3 million have been advanced.
"In 1960, certain financial transactions of the Company caused concern
1072
and an investigation was carried out by Sir Richard Yeabsley, Accountant Adviser to the Board of Trade. In the light of his Report, my predecessor required the Company to appoint two independent Directors nominated by him, Sir Richard Yeabsley and Mr. Hanning Phillips. At the same time, a third independent Director, Mr. Lawrence Robson, nominated by the Company, was also appointed. These three Directors all resigned in April, 1962.
"Thereupon my predecessor appointed Mr. J. R. Muirie, a Partner of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, Chartered Accountants, to inspect the Company's accounts.
"Last August, Mr. Muirie submitted his report, which is now available in the Vote Office. The facts revealed in the report convinced me that the Company had in a number of respects not been conducting its business in a proper manner. I accordingly called upon the Company to remedy the matters complained of within 30 days, as provided for in the Financial Agreement with Her Majesty's Government.
"Since the Company took no steps to put things right, I decided to adopt a procedure provided for in the Agreement for the replacement of certain Directors. However, the Company issued a writ, which among other things questioned my right to take this course. In view of this action by the Company it would obviously have been improper for me to seek to replace the Directors who were conducting the litigation against the Government. Having therefore felt obliged to abandon this course, I sought redress under another clause of the Agreement which provides that when breaches of the Agreement are not remedied by the Company the Government is entitled to claim repayment of the loans advanced. I caused a writ to be issued for this purpose on January 17.
"In view of the situation revealed by the Muirie Report it was obviously not possible to continue to advance further public money to the Company or to enter into contracts with it for Admiralty repairs. It was equally impossible to allow the Dockyard, which is one of Malta's most important sources of employment, to be brought

1073
to a standstill, pending the settlement of the litigation, which will probably take many months.
"The Prime Minister of Malta and I discussed the whole situation when he was over here in December and we have since then kept in close touch. As a result, we agreed that some way must be urgently found of putting the Dockyard under a new and trusted management, to whom loan payments could be resumed and with whom Admiralty contracts could be placed.
"I discussed the matter with the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, Group Captain Bailey and Mr. Christopher Bailey, to see whether the necessary change of management could be effected by agreement. However, despite protracted talks it proved impossible to secure their consent to any arrangement which I would have felt able to justify to the House.
"In the absence of any agreed solution, the Prime Minister of Malta, after discussions with me, has decided to introduce to-day in the Malta Legislature, a Bill to set up a Council of Administration to whom most of the functions of the Board of the Company will be temporarily transferred, pending the settlement of the issue, either by negotiation or by the Courts. This action has my full support. The Bill also provides that any powers conferred on the Council of Administration which are found not to be necessary for the discharge of their responsibilities can be transferred back to the Board of Directors.
"The members of the Council of Administration will be appointed by the Prime Minister of Malta after consultation with the Colonial Secretary.
"Subject to the passage of the Bill, Sir Eric Millbourn, who has great experience in shipping matters and port administration and is port adviser to the Minister of Transport, will be appointed Chairman of the Council. The other members will include Sir Nicholas Cayzer, Chairman of the British and Commonwealth Shipping Company, Mr. Guy Densem the senior partner in Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths and Company, Chartered Accountants, and Lord Melchett, a Director of M. Samuel and Company, Merchant Bankers. The Prime Minister of
1074
Malta and I wish to express our thanks to these gentlemen for agreeing, without remuneration, to serve on this Council and to give Malta the benefit of their wide business experience. I understand that they may consider appointing a leading firm of ship repairers to act as Managing Agents.
"These arrangements will enable us to make further loan payments to finance the conversion of the Dockyard and to resume Admiralty orders. Subject to a satisfactory contract, the First Lord proposes in the near future to send H.M.S. 'Troubridge' to Malta for a major refit. This should provide employment for several hundred men for over a year.
"Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta have from the start been extremely reluctant to intervene. We have, however, felt it our duty to do so in order to ensure the proper use of public money and to protect the interests of the many thousands of Maltese people whose livelihood is directly or indirectly dependent upon the Dockyard."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Marquess for his statement. He will appreciate that it will cause very great concern, because the maintenance of employment in the Dockyard is, as he says, vital to the economy and the social life of Malta, as any noble Lord who has been there well knows. May I ask whether the noble Marquess can give us any assurance that when existing Admiralty contracts have been completed the dockyard will not come to a standstill before a new firm has taken over from Bailey's? That seems to me to be a point of cardinal importance. Apart from that, I only wish to say that we will study with very great care his statement and the Report of the Accountant, which is now in the Vote Office, and we may wish to raise the matter again in your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it is generally accepted, that one of the guiding principles in everything we have done was as far as possible to ensure a high rate of employment in Malta. In so far as the noble Earl's question is concerned, I cannot tell him that we can guarantee any particular

1075
volume of Admiralty work, but I think I should make it quite clear that it is our hope that, through the conversion of this dockyard—which temporarily, of course, has been delayed, as we were not in a position to continue to advance funds—there will be a steady increase in merchant shipping. This, we hope, will be one of the principal means of maintaining a high level of manpower. There has so far, I am happy to say, been no indication that it will be necessary to reduce the manpower. With the conversion proceeding as fast as it will be able to do, I sincerely hope that the amount of merchant shipping this yard will be able to handle will help to maintain a high level of employment. I hope that that answers the noble Earl's question.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Marquess confirm that the Council of Administration will, in fact, carry on the daily work of this port until such time as some new firm takes over?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is roughly the position, my Lords. It is their hope that a firm of managing agents—that is to say, a firm experienced in the work of ship repairing—may come in to do this work. But I want to make it quite clear that the firm of Bailey (Malta), Limited, remains in existence, with the powers of the directors temporarily assumed by the Council of Administration.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess a question, because I do not know whether I have correctly understood his original Answer? Who is going to find the finance which will be required in the meantime, for working capital and so on?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the object of this operation is to enable Her Majesty's Government to continue in the financing of the conversion of the dockyard. So far, we have advanced something over £3 million, and our undertaking was to advance £7¼ million. Now, under the arrangements which we hope will come into effect after this Bill is passed in Malta, it will be possible for us to continue to advance these large sums of money.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether, in
1076
view of this extraordinary statement this afternoon, and anticipating the Report that we shall study, and in view of the statement that it would appear that there have been some irregularities in the operation of this company as well as possible court action between Her Majesty's Government and the home company, Parliament will be denied the opportunity of discussing this Report and this statement in the near future?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, any possibility of Parliamentary discussion should, I think, be considered through the usual channels and after perusal of the Report.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if I may revert to my Amendment on the Water Resources Bill, I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Hastings for what he said, and in particular for his promise to say something on Third Reading about the impact and the amounts that may occur under these charging schemes. I am glad to know that his Ministry are considering this matter carefully and I wonder whether, with all their virtues, they might profitably also go to see the Board of Trade about it, because I think that there is a joint responsibility, at any rate so far as industry is concerned.
On the major aspect of the Amendment itself, I am sorry that he did not like my suggestion. It was, as I said, intended to be helpful. I certainly did not anywhere say that I expected substantial reductions or indeed exemptions for the holders of licences of right; and I do not think that this Amendment is in itself inconsistent with the remarks I made on Committee stage, when the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, asked that statutory water undertakers should be exempt. Indeed, I have not changed my view about that. But what I would indeed ask my noble friend to do, if he rules out this as a line by which licences of right may be attacked, is to give even more careful consideration to the difficulties under Clauses 34 and 35, because I think there

1077
are serious and quite real difficulties and anxieties felt by the people who now have these sources of water, and who have spent quite a lot of money in developing them. Therefore, if he rules out this one, which I quite accept, I hope he will give even greater care to the position created under the previous clauses. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment paving the way for the proposed new clause after Clause 58. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 32, leave out from ("prepared") to ("and") in line 33.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY moved to add to subsection (6):
"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: My Lords, I realise that in moving this Amendment I am referring to an aspect of this Bill which I raised at Committee stage. I make no apology for doing this, because it seems to me to be a most important aspect of conserving water. I have always welcomed this Bill warmly, but there is one thing in the back of my mind which gives me some anxiety. We are creating an organisation to conserve water which is no doubt capable of achieving great results, but will these results be achieved at so great a cost that some customers will not be able to benefit? I need not tell your Lordships that large-scale works for conservation of water are costly in money, time and land. That is why I think we ought to offer every encouragement to any method which will economise in the use of all three.
The best method seems to be to encourage the private owner or enterprise to construct their own reservoirs, and we can only encourage them by letting them take flood water free of cost. The Minister pointed out at the Committee stage that, under Clause 58, it was possible for river authorities to do the
1078
very thing that I am asking; but clearly he has not dismissed my point since there is a Government Amendment down to Clause 58 giving a right of appeal to the Minister, for which I should like to thank him. In the event of the applicant being dissatisfied with the terms negotiated with the river authorities, he may appeal to the Minister. Furthermore, I think he gave an assurance that he would be watching the authorities' charging schemes and giving advice on them. But he argued on Committee stage that it would be wrong to scramble new authorities. I am suggesting that, though this is a reasonable and cautious approach, it is not really promoting water conservation as it might. If, as he comes to this fence, he will throw his heart over first, cheap and prompt water conservation will follow.
It may be asked: why give this benefit only to the irrigator? I am not seeking to confine it to the irrigator, but it is the case of the irrigator which I know and can speak about. If it is desired to spread it, I certainly have no objection, and am convinced that it would be in the general interest of conservation. Again, it may be asked how the river authority can fix a flow at which to allow reservoirs to be filled free. Even if I could, it is not for me to offer technical advice. But since the Bill itself incorporates arrangements for fixing minimum flows, I should have thought that the fixing of a maximum flow above which water would be classified as flood water, would be a deal easier. I am confirmed in this opinion by the fact that one river board at least is positively encouraging farmers to construct reservoirs, which they can fill when the flow in the river is high. For these reasons I think I am justified in asking the Hausa to accept this Amendment. In doing so, I would also ask the Minister whether he would wish to say anything further on charges relating to water authorised, which question I brought up previously at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 7, at end insert—
("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.").—(Lord De Ramsey.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, has just moved with his usual lucidity is, as he said, identical to that which he moved at Committee stage. In Committee, I gave your Lordships the reasons why we did not feel able to accept this Amendment, even though we were not unsympathetic to the purposes behind it. The noble Lord's Amendment has not changed; nor, I fear to tell him, have our objections to it. I am sure your Lordships will not wish me to repeat those objections at length. However, I think it would be right if I were to remind you briefly of them.
In the first place, we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment since, as we read it, it would single out those abstracting for one particular purpose—namely, spray irrigation—and put them in a privileged position vis-à-vis other abstracters. During our Committee stage, and indeed now at Report, the noble Lord queried whether his Amendment would in fact have this discriminatory effect, but I must confess I feel now, as I felt at Committee, that it would be bound to have that effect in view of the precise wording of the last line of it, which I should like to quote:
"…for the purposes of storage for subsequent spray irrigation".
The noble Lord says he does not necessarily wish to confine the Amendment to those purposes, but, of course, his wording does so confine it; and, as it does, we feel—and I must repeat that we feel—it would be quite wrong to single out one particular abstracter in this way for this particular and very marked benefit.
My second objection is that while I agree that at times of flood water may be surplus, I pointed out at Committee that his Amendment speaks of periods of high flow, and I suggested then that it might be difficult to determine what was a period of high flow. Now I would grant that the noble Lord may be on the target when he suggests that if we can determine a minimum acceptable flow we should be able to determine what is a high flow. Nevertheless, I do not think it would be altogether easy to determine what is a high flow for this purpose.
1080
My third objection to the Amendment is that the Bill as drafted already goes a long way, in our view, to meet the noble Lord's point. I said at Committee, and I am glad to repeat now, that we think impounding schemes of the sort which the noble Lord has in mind under his Amendment are desirable. We wish, like him, to see them encouraged. We trust that the river authorities will encourage them; and we consider that a good way of encouraging them is for the river authorities to introduce differential, preferential charges in respect of such impounding schemes. Now such preferential charges are provided for under subsection (4) of Clause 56, and again, indeed, under Clause 58. Under these clauses, a river authority, if it so judges fit, will be able to provide for differential charging to the extent, if it so desires, of nil charging. Again as I said at Committee, and as the noble Lord mentioned in moving his Amendment, we are proposing to give the river authorities guidance about such charging schemes, and they will, of course, be subject to my right honourable friend's approval.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord has said, if your Lordships accept the two Amendments which I shall be shortly moving, Amendments No. 59B and 59D, you will be incorporating in Clause 58 a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government against a refusal of a river authority to enter into an agreement under Clause 58 or against the terms proferred by an authority for such an agreement. That is to meet a point which the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and my noble friend Lord Merrivale made during our Committee stage. If a farmer can show that, by reason of the storage he has provided and the time when he seeks to abstract water, he is making—and I quote the words of Clause 58 (2) (a):
"…a beneficial contribution towards the fulfilment of the purposes of the river authority's new functions",
there is a strong possibility that he will be able to obtain a reduction of the charges payable under the charging scheme.
In sum, my Lords, I am still unable to advise your Lordships to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. On reflection,

1081
perhaps, I should not wish to rely overmuch on the argument about the difficulty of how to determine what is a period of high flow but I feel that my other two objections—that this singles out a man who wishes to abstract for purposes of spray irrigation for special preferential treatment, and that we are already providing in this Bill for differential charging—remain valid. I would readily admit that in certain circumstances a nil charge might be both legitimate and desirable, but the circumstances may well vary from one river authority to another, and within the area of a given authority from one district to another. In view of this and all the other arguments I have sought to advance, I would suggest that this Amendment must still be resisted.
Having said that, I should like to respond to the noble Lord's invitation and to make one thing crystal clear—that is, that we recognise the growing importance of spray irrigation and are most anxious to ensure that the spray irrigator is not unfairly handicapped. Your Lordships will remember that during our Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, moved an Amendment to Clause 56 whereby charges would be related to quantities actually abstracted as opposed to quantities authorised to be abstracted. He had the special position of the spray irrigator in mind in so doing. My noble friend Lord St. Oswald argued, I thought powerfully and cogently, against the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, but said that he would like to give further consideration, among other things, to a compromise suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, had ventilated. I should like to take this opportunity, since we are dealing in this Amendment with the position of the spray irrigator, of saying a word or two about our intentions here.
We have given very close attention to this matter since Committee stage and fully accept that in many areas in a typical year a spray irrigator is likely to abstract much less water than the maximum amount of his need in a dry year. That is perfectly obvious; and that maximum amount will be bound to be the amount for which, if he is a prudent man like Lord De Ramsey or Lord Walston, he would obtain a licence to abstract. In this case, the difference between peak need and actual need is
1082
both large and quite unpredictable. Accordingly, the Government have concluded that if suitable provisions can be devised it would be right to afford the spray irrigator an alternative basis of charge to that set down in Clause 56, subsection (2). It has not been at all easy to frame a suitable Amendment, and I do not at present know whether we shall be able to construct a watertight one in time for it to be discussed in your Lordships' House. In view of this, I feel it might be helpful if I were now to say what we have in mind.
Our proposed Amendment would provide that the river authority might make an agreement with the holder of a licence for abstraction of water for use for spray irrigation providing for charges in two parts. The first would be a basic charge calculated by reference to the quantity of water authorised to be abstracted; the second would be a supplementary charge calculated by reference to the quantity actually abstracted. Both parts of the charge would be payable annually. Noble Lords will appreciate that in such a two-part arrangement the charge for a given quantity of water authorised to be taken may be expected to be less than that provided for under a Clause 56 scheme, but the charge for a given quantity of water actually taken might be expected to be greater than the charge for an equivalent quantity authorised to be taken.
As we at present see it, a river authority, in deciding whether to make such an arrangement, should be required to have regard to two factors. The first would be the extent to which the quantity of water abstracted during any year (or that part of any year during which the licence authorises abstraction) is likely to be less than the quantity authorised to be abstracted during that period. The second factor would be how often over a period of not less than five years the actual abstraction is likely to be less than the authorised abstraction.
Now it is obvious that by choosing one basis of charge, namely, the charging scheme in a dry year, and another, the proposed agreement, in a wet year, the spray irrigator should have the best of both worlds and the river authority would have the worst of both. As a result we feel that any such agreement must run for a number of years—not less than five years is the sort of period we have

1083
in mind. Provision will be necessary to deal with the position where, for one reason or another, an agreement needs to be terminated. I should perhaps add that we think that there should be the same sort of provision for settlement of disputes about this type of agreement, as there will be for agreements under Clause 58 should our proposed Amendments, which I shall shortly be moving, to that clause be accepted.
I am sorry that we have not been able to devise an Amendment embodying these principles in time for them to be discussed at our Report stage. I hope, however, that what I have said makes it clear that we appreciate the fact that the spray irrigator may find himself in a rather special position and that, although I am not able to accept the particular Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, we are prepared to try to devise a scheme which will strike a reasonable balance between the requirements of the spray irrigator, the revenue of the river authorities and the vagaries of the British climate.
4.13 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has gone almost as far as we could expect in this very difficult and complex problem. The noble Earl mentioned that spray users would not require so much water in some seasons as in others; but there is, of course, the other side of that question which was raised during the Committee stage—namely, that in a dry season the river authority would naturally have the power to limit the quantity of water permitted to individuals. That is one of the points we had in mind. The words, "time to time", in Clause 56 (2) seem to cover the point we raised. I think it was so intended. But the scheme outlined by the noble Earl just now is still in embryo. It seems we must wait until we see it on the Marshalled List to find what actually has been worked out. So long as the Government can accomplish what the noble Earl has set out to accomplish, then I think the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and indeed any other Member of your Lordships' House, will be ready to agree.
It is clear from the noble Earl's expressed sentiments that he had a lot of
1084
sympathy with the case. I hope that when he produces this scheme cases like those seasons where an irrigator needs for his crops a large quantity of water which is not available and the use of which he is denied even if it were, will be borne in mind. The noble Earl mentioned a period of five years. That sounds fairly equitable, but, in view of the vagaries of our climate, I am not sure that three years would not be about the right time to settle on. So long as the intentions of the noble Earl are as good as I think, then I do not see why we should oppose on this point.
LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed that the Minister cannot go that little bit further on Clause 58 and accept my Amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, I should like to thank the Minister for having given the charges scheme for authorised water such careful thought and for having in mind a method of meeting the position of the irrigators. Although it may be difficult from the administrative point of view to work it out, I have great confidence that that will materialise and that he will get, as a result, under a set scheme, much better co-operation from the farming community and from the irrigators than he would under Clause 56 as now in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Supplementary provisions as to charging schemes:]
4.15 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment and is intended to take account of Amendments which we shall be moving in the course of dealing with Schedule 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 12, leave out the first ("that") to end of line 15 and insert ("paragraph 4 of that Schedule shall have effect in relation to a charging scheme with the omission of sub-paragraphs (c) to (f)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Exemptions from, and reduction of, charges]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment 59D are

1085
linked. It might be convenient to consider them together. They arise from an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on this point at Committee stage. Their purpose is quite simple. It is to provide a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government against the refusal of a river authority to make an agreement under Clause 58 (1) or against the terms proffered by an authority for such an agreement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 29, leave out ("make an agreement with any person") and insert ("on the application of any person, make an agreement with him").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I would express my appreciation to the noble Lord. I thought the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, was going to rise, but he did not. I supported him previously and should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that when a river authority consider the extent to which another person's works have made a "beneficial contribution towards the fulfilment of the purposes" of their new functions, the authority are to take into account works built before the passing of this Bill, as well as those carried out after its enactment. This will be particularly relevant where statutory water undertakers are concerned; it is only fair that their existing conservation works should be taken into account. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 36, leave out from first ("constructed") to ("have") in line 37, and insert ("(whether before or after the passing of this Act) by that person or any works to be constructed by him").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to the exercise of the power conferred by the last preceding subsection, if on any application under this section the river authority refuse to make an agreement with the applicant as mentioned in subsection
1086
(1) of this section, or the applicant objects to the terms of such an agreement as proposed by the river authority and that objection is not withdrawn, the applicant or the river authority may refer the question in dispute to the Minister; and on any such reference the Minister shall determine that question, having regard to the matters to which, in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, the river authority were required to have regard in relation to the applicant.
(5) Any decision of the Minister on a reference under the last preceding subsection shall be final; and the Minister may give directions to the river authority requiring them to make an agreement with the applicant in accordance with his decision.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.20 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN 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 expressly or by implication) to be abstracted by statutory water undertakers by a statutory provision which was passed, made or issued either—

(a) before the end of the initial period, whether before or after the passing of this Act, or

(b) after the end of that period, but in pursuance of an application made to the Minister before the end of that period, whether before or after the passing of this Act."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has already made reference to this Amendment in dealing with the previous one; and, as he said, I moved a similar Amendment during Committee stage. I am very tempted—and but for the question of time would do so—to go through the arguments which the noble Lord then put forward against my Amendment, because, with the greatest respect, I do not think that they were all basically valid. What I propose to do this afternoon is to abbreviate the arguments, to punch them home, if I may use that phrase.
Up to the present time, a statutory water undertaker who requires to abstract has had to carry out the necessary works in order that abstraction can be effectively and efficiently done. In order to do that, he has had to go to considerable capital expense, because the existing customers of the statutory water undertaker could not possibly pay for the whole of the capital outlay in one year. As a result, the cost has to be spread over a

1087
number of years. Thus, there is a heavy capital debt already existing on abstracters, on which they have to pay considerable interest charges every year. If this charges scheme comes into effect, and existing abstractions are not exempted, it seems to me obvious that the statutory undertakers will be paying twice. They are already carrying on heavy interest charges—and, as I read the Bill, there is no question of the river authority taking over the existing capital obligations of the statutory undertaker—and now they have to carry capital obligations for works which have no direct benefit to them. That seems to me unfair.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said earlier that this was a case of the statutory undertakers contracting out of existing obligations. But there is already contracting out. After all, Clause 56 gives the right to river authorities to vary their charges. I do not complain about that. Obviously, if electricity companies or industrialists take large quantities of water and return them almost immediately into the source of supply, they should be charged at a low rate. Farmers also will be supplied at a low rate. Therefore, there is already a varying of charges, and it does not seem to me to be unfair or unreasonable that those who benefit by new construction works, which a river authority have undertaken, should pay for that benefit.
It is not as though the river authority were in the same position as the statutory undertaker. Hundreds of thousands of persons take a supply from the statutory undertaker. They make the same charge, for example, upon two houses of the same rateable value, but in one house there may be a man and wife, both out all day, whose actual consumption of water is very low, while next door there may be a family of five or six children, whose consumption is very high. Yet both families pay the same charge, though it levels out in the end. The river authority, providing bulk abstractions, which may require further capital works, will however, have comparatively few customers, and therefore the apportionment of the cost according to the benefit arising from works seems to me fairer than spreading it over the existing undertakers who have already carried out works and still have considerable charges.
One other point occurs to me. I wonder whether this may not cause a certain amount of delay in the carrying out of works by a statutory undertaker who might require further abstractions. Instead of making a contribution and doing their own work, they might delay and leave it to the river authority, to save money on it because of the spread-over. In a charges scheme such as this, I do not think it unreasonable or unfair that payment should lie where benefit lies.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not give way on this point. I feel that there is a certain confusion about what conservation really means here. If this Amendment were accepted, it would strike at the whole basis of the idea of payment for water conservation. I know that in the past undertakers have spent large capital sums, but surely Clause 56 takes care of this writing off or writing down of these capital works. If all existing works are excused from having to pay this royalty (as it were) towards the cost of water conservation, then water conservation cannot be properly carried out. I do not feel that there is any unfairness here to undertakers who in the past have spent large sums. These are two different problems—water conservation, on the one hand, and distribution, on the other. They are not the same, and I hope that the Minister will resist this Amendment.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, I hope that when we come to Third Reading an opportunity will be provided for a full debate on the whole philosophy of these charges, as was rather indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I think that there is a great deal of anxiety, and possibly some misunderstanding, about how this charges scheme will work. I feel that there is great weight in the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in the conclusion of his remarks on this Amendment, that one of the principles to be enshrined in this scheme, so far as is practicable, is that the charge for the cost of new works should fall directly on those who benefit from such works.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for summarising his case so

1089
succinctly and, if I may say so, so well. I shall pay particular attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve about the philosophy of charges: I think that that would be a very suitable subject for Third Reading. I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for supporting the case which I have already partially made, when replying to an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross.
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has not made out a stronger case than he did on Committee stage and has not succeeded in demolishing my arguments on that occasion. I think that he is a great deal too anxious about this question of charging. The situation is not so bad as he thinks. As he himself pointed out—and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, agreed—the Bill allows for and clearly envisages reduced charges, and even exemptions from charge for an abstracter who has himself built or has contributed to the cost of works which serve the purpose of water conservation; and I moved an Amendment a moment or two ago to make it clear that this applied to work carried out before the Act comes into being. Therefore, statutory water undertakers who have built impounding reservoirs and who are providing compensation water to the river they impound may expect at the least very substantial remission of the standard charges. That is partly an answer to the noble Lord's complaint that they have to pay heavy capital loan charges and would, as a result, in a manner of speaking, be paying twice if they also paid for abstraction charges to the river authority.
There is a point which arises out of this that I must mention to the noble Lord: namely, that it is not in all cases that statutory water undertakings are drawing from impounding reservoirs. They may be making direct abstractions without having undertaken conservation works, and obviously, even following the noble Lord's argument, it would not be right that they should be exempt from charges for abstractions of that sort. I do not think the case the noble Lord put forward in regard to paying twice is as strong as all that.
Again, I should like to repeat what I said to my noble friend Lord Colville
1090
of Culross: that water undertakers holding licences of right will not be charged for a good many years, pending the coming into operation of the charging schemes, and that, of course, represents the bulk of supply. It seems to the Government that there is no reason for going beyond this point and trying to differentiate financially between water undertakers and other types of abstracters. After all, why should one commercial undertaking be distingushed from another? And I do not think there is any argument that statutory water undertakers are commercial undertakings. That is looked after under another clause which we shall come to in due course. But that has nothing to do with charges. Statutory obligations have to do with supply, which is another matter that we shall deal with under another Amendment. In respect of charges, I revert to what I said to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross: that if the water undertakings were not to pay on their licences of right, then clearly they, and other people, would have to pay a great deal more as a result of new works carried out.
That brings me to the second argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, when he said that new works should be charged out to those who benefit. So far as I remember, he did not distinguish between direct and indirect benefit; and this is important. There will be minor works where there are direct benefits, which would be quite clear to the river authority, and presumably the charges would reflect that situation. But in the important cases the benefits flowing would be indirect, because these would be major conservation works at the river sources; and one of the major purposes of the Bill and one of the main duties of the Water Resources Board is to see that these major conservation works are carried out. As is pointed out in the White Paper, it would be difficult to apportion these benefits flowing from major conservation works in any other way than that proposed in the Bill.
One of the results of these major conservation works will be indirect benefit generally not only to all future users, but also to present abstracters of water: because, as I pointed out on the Committee stage (and this was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren admitted) the major conservation works will ensure

1091
a degree of reliability of supply, which not even the present abstracters enjoy at the moment. Therefore, it seems to the Government much the fairer and better way to charge the costs of all conservation works in the future in accordance with the proposals of this Bill and to apportion them generally throughout all abstracted, present and future.
I might end by saying that one effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, if accepted, would be that the statutory water undertakers would gain a position of advantage vis-à-vis other users of the future. It seems to me that in the future the larger increases in requirements of water will probably come from industry, and perhaps even from spray irrigation. The statutory water undertakings increase of supply obviously depends on increased population. But it might well be that if charges were confined solely to new abstracters a great burden would fall upon industry and agriculture and rather less on statutory water undertakers. While the noble Lord opposite might think that this would be quite fair, speaking from a social point of view I think it would be much preferable to even out these charges over the whole of the users. That is really the case the Government have in answer to the noble Lord's Amendment. We feel we cannot change our minds on this matter, and therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for a detailed reply. I agree right away that the Amendment he moved earlier made it clearer that existing works are included in a variation or a remission of charge. What I am really asking for is not remission, but abolition, and the previous Amendment eases the burden. But I do not think the case for spreading the cost over the whole of the abstracters, existing and future, is sound. The noble Lord, when speaking, quite rightly twitted me that the water undertaker did not necessarily construct works when he drew water, which reminded me that many water undertakers derive a supply from underground. Having the right to abstract water from underground, they made agreements under which they pay an annual charge and in many cases undertake considerable obligations for the free supply of those from whom they
1092
received permission for the abstraction. Nothing in this Bill removes from the statutory water undertaker any existing obligations into which he has entered with other folk in order to get a supply of water, and it seems rather unfair if he is still to carry the liabilities which he freely entered into in the circumstances of that time, that he should now carry some of the costs of those who come in the future. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, and particularly having regard to the previous Amendment, which does slightly alleviate the position, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.40 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 58 to insert the following new clause:
Revision of charging schemes
".—(1) Where a charging scheme prepared by a river authority is for the time being in force—

(a) the river authority, or

(b) any statutory water undertakers who are the holders of a licence under this Act to abstract water from a source of supply in the area of the river authority, or

(c) any persons who are in the aggregate the holders of not less than ten licences for the time being in force under this Act to abstract water from sources of supply in that area,

may apply to the Minister for a revision of that scheme.
(2) Any application under this section shall include the submission of a new charging scheme prepared by the applicants, either by way of variation of, or in substitution for, the charging scheme as in force at the time of the application.
(3) The Minister shall not entertain an application under this Section which is made before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which, in the case of the river authority in question, the charging scheme originally prepared by them or (as the case may be) the revision last applied for under this section was approved by the Minister (with or without modifications), unless it appears to the Minister that there are exceptional circumstances which render an earlier revision necessary or expedient.
(4) Subsections (2) to (6) of Section 56, sub section (4) of Section 58, and, where the applicants are the river authority, subsection (1) of Section 57 of this Act shall have effect in relation to a charging scheme prepared under this Section as they have effect in relation to a charging scheme prepared under Section 56 of this Act.
(5) In relation to a charging scheme prepared under this Section by applicants other than

1093
the river authority, the provisions of Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—

(a) any reference to a draft statement shall be construed as a reference to a charging scheme as prepared by the applicants;

(b) except in paragraph 9 of that Schedule, any reference to the river authority, unless the reference is to the river authority area, shall be construed as a reference to the applicants;

(c) in paragraph 9 of that Schedule, the first reference to the river authority shall be construed as a reference to the applicants and the second such reference shall be construed as a reference to the river authority and the applicants;

(d) the river authority shall be included among the bodies on whom, under paragraph 4 of that Schedule, a copy of the notice was required to be served, and sub-paragraphs (c) to (f) of that paragraph shall be omitted.

(6) A charging scheme prepared under this Section which is approved by the Minister (with or without modifications) shall come into operation on such date as may be specified in the scheme as so approved.
(7) Where a charging scheme prepared by a river authority has been revised under this Section, any reference in the last preceding section to a charging scheme prepared by the river authority shall be construed as a reference to the charging scheme relating to licences granted by that authority, in the form in which such a scheme is for the time being in force."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very glad on this occasion to be able to offer something to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren. As he will recognise, this Amendment varies only slightly from one he moved himself at Committee stage, upon which occasion I gave an undertaking that the Government would introduce an Amendment on the same lines and expand it as necessary, especially in regard to procedural matters. This is that Amendment. The noble Lord will see that we preserve what was in his Amendment in so far as it allows any statutory water undertaker on their own to apply for a revision of the charging scheme. It goes on to allow any other ten licence holders to do the same.
The only other point to which I think I should draw your Lordships' attention is the fact that applications for revision can only be made every five years; and that fits in with the present proposals in the Bill that charging schemes shall not be varied more than every five years. Therefore I think it is necessary to in-
1094
clude it here, if only to avoid perhaps rather frivolous applications. The rest of the matter is purely procedural, and unless the noble Lord wishes any further explanation, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 58, insert the said new clause—(Lord Hastings)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, on this occasion I have to thank the noble Lord not only for words, but for deeds. It is much more satisfactory to be able to thank him for deeds and express appreciation of them, than for mere words, although his words in the OFFICIAL REPORT may be quoted against him later, and may be useful in that respect. But the provisions which are now provided meet the case which was put during Committee stage, and we thank him for them. They are very comprehensive, and I think it is an improvement of what was before the Committee on a previous occasion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Powers to acquire land]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is not a very major or radical Amendment. Clause 61 gives a river authority power to acquire any land which they require for any purpose in connection with the performance of any of their functions. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that references in the clause to land should generally include existing interests in land. As a result, a river authority will be able to acquire a subsisting interest or right, for example, a lease, without buying the freehold. We think that that is clearly right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In subsections (1) to (3) of this section references to land shall be construed as including references to any interest in or right over land (except in so far as the proviso to subsection (1) refers to land as being outside the area of a river authority); and, in relation to the acquisition of interests in or rights over land, references to land in the said Act of 1946 as applied by the last preceding subsection shall be construed as references to any such interest or right, or as references to the land in or over which an interest or right is to be acquired, as the context may require").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Acquisition of new interests or rights over land]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this, again, is a small Amendment which is little more than drafting. In case any of your Lordships are puzzled by the curious Anglo-Norman phraseology in the Amendment, "for a term of years certain", I understand that it means for a fixed term of years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 14, at end insert ("and an interest or right may be so acquired either in perpetuity or for a term of years certain or so as to be terminable by notice").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this, again, is a minor Amendment. Subsection (6) of this clause applies, and should apply, generally. It should not, we feel, be limited to the circumstances of this subsection. Hence, the deletion of (6). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 19, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5)").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 66 which follows it are linked, and I suggest we might consider them together. Although they are virtually drafting, perhaps I should say a word in explanation of them. As your Lordships know, subsection (6) of Clause 62 empowers my right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to make regulations for the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the subsection. Under Clause 116 (2) these regulations will be subject to negative resolution. The effect of these two Amendments is to make the wording of these three paragraphs rather more general, while at the same time retaining the sense of the paragraphs which appear in the Bill as at present drafted. This is desirable in order to cover all the things that it may be necessary to do by regulations for the purposes of this clause. I can assure noble Lords that the Amendments do not in any way widen the powers of acquisition conferred by the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 15, leave out from ("are") to end of line 18 and insert ("to apply for the purposes of any such acquisition").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 21, leave out from ("and") to end of line 31 and insert (" (whether compulsory or not) may be made binding upon persons (other than the river authority) who are entitled to interests in the servient land and on the successors in title of such persons;
(c) as to the application, subject to any exceptions and modifications specified in the regulations, of any provisions of the Land Charges Act 1925 or the Land Registration Act 1925 in relation to any such acquisition").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Orders authorising execution of works]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out Clause 63, and to insert instead:
Compulsory powers for carrying out engineering or building operations
"63.—(1) Where in the performance of their new functions a river authority propose to carry out any engineering or building operations, and it appears to them that for the purpose of carrying out those operations they need compulsory powers, whether consisting of or including powers of compulsory acquisition or not, the authority may apply to the Minister for an order under this section.
(2) The provisions of Schedule 7 to this Act shall have effect with respect to applications and orders under this section:
Provided that, where the powers applied for by an application under this section do not consist of or include any powers of compulsory acquisition, Part II of that Schedule shall not have effect with respect to that application or to any order made thereon, and an order made on that application shall not confer any powers of compulsory acquisition.
(3) Subject to the provisions of that Schedule and of the last preceding subsection, where application is made to the Minister for an order under this section, the Minister may make an order conferring on the river authority such compulsory powers, for the purpose of carrying out the engineering or building operations in question, as the Minister may consider necessary or expedient for that purpose; and (subject to that Schedule and the last preceding subsection) an order under this section may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions, including provisions for amending, adapting or repealing local enactments, as the Minister considers necessary or expedient.
(4) In relation to any order under this section, except in so far as it confers any powers of compulsory acquisition, section 61 of the Land Drainage Act 1930 (which contains provisions for the protection of certain public

1097
utility and other undertakings) shall have effect as it has effect in relation to any order under that Act.
(5) Nothing in this section or in any order made thereunder shall exempt a river authority from any restriction imposed by Part IV of this Act.
(6) The preceding provisions of this section shall have effect without prejudice to any compulsory powers (including powers of compulsory acquisition) which a river authority can exercise, or can be authorised to exercise, apart from this section.
(7) In this section and in Schedule 7 to this Act 'powers of compulsory acquisition' means any power to acquire compuisorily any land, or an interest in or right over land, including any power to acquire compuisorily such an interest or right by way of the creation of a new interest or right."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 63, as it stands, makes provision whereby a river authority may be equipped with compulsory powers in connection with the carrying out of works for the purposes of their new functions. But where the authority not only require powers of this kind but also need to acquire land compuisorily, they must proceed concurrently both under Clauses 61 and 63, because the latter clause contains, in subsection (4), an express prohibition on the compulsory acquisition of land. The purpose of this Amendment is not to confer any additional powers on a river authority, but to make it possible for a single order to be made under the new Clause 63 empowering a river authority both to acquire land compuisorily and to exercise compulsory powers for the execution of works. This will put a river authority in a position similiar to that of a statutory water undertaking which, by virtue of Section 23 of the Water Act, 1945, as extended and amended by the Water Act, 1948, may, by order made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, be authorised both to construct waterworks and to acquire land compuisorily for those purposes. It will make for more convenient administration, and will be in the public interest generally, that such an order be made, rather than that two separate orders be required under Clauses 61 and 63 respectively.
I was given notice of a doubt, or a question, in the mind of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who seemed to think that unusual powers were being given under this clause That is not so, and in fact subsections (6) and (7) (I think
1098
it was subsection (7) which was worrying my noble friend) are, I am informed, purely procedural provisions. To sum up, the purpose of the new clause is not to confer any new powers beyond those already conferred by the Bill, but to enable a river authority—and this is important—subject to proper safeguards (for which Schedule 7 makes full provision), to be empowered in one order to do all the things which may be necessary in connection with a major work which the river authority require to carry out in the discharge of their new functions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 43, leave out Clause 63 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
4.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for anticipating my query on this clause, but I am afraid that I am still not quite clear—probably due to my lack of understanding. Nevertheless, any enactment which endows somebody with compulsory powers of one sort or another requires very close scrutiny by your Lordships. The point that worries me is this. Subsection (1) of the new Clause 63 refers to:
"…compulsory powers, whether consisting of or including powers of compulsory acquisition or not."
Then in subsection (7), the words "powers of compulsory acquisition" are defined so as to include everything that I have ever come across in what experience I have had in the way of compulsory purchase powers, which includes the power to buy a right and even a temporary easement, I think, subsequent to the land's reversion to the owner at the end of the operation of the works.
Notwithstanding that, there are still other powers envisaged, because the wording in subsection (7) is clearly not the only thing that is envisaged by the wording in subsection (1). This, I think, is borne out if your Lordships will look (if I may be forgiven for going ahead) at the additional provisions in Schedule 7, which are to be found in Amendments 129J, 129K, and so on. What has happened here, my Lords, is that the Government have put down a new Part II of Schedule 7 dealing with orders conferring powers of compulsory acquisition, which I think are the same powers as are referred to in the new subsection

1099
(7) of Clause 63; and there is all the proper detail in the second part of that Schedule to deal with objections and compensation and everything else. But it still leaves Part I of Schedule 7 mostly as printed in the Bill itself, except for the fact that the people on whom notices are being served under paragraph 2 in Part I of Schedule I are now different people who will be served in the case of compulsory acquisition. I think this bears out that there are some different powers involved, and powers different even from this very extensive definition of compulsory acquisition powers in subsection (7).
Moreover, in Part I of Schedule 7 there are no compensation provisions, and if the powers of compulsory acquisition are other than those described in subsection (7) of the new clause then I do not see how they can possibly be covered by any of the definitions of land in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, which normally will provide and include in the compensation provisions the acquisition of any right in land. So clearly, there must be, by the wording both of this new clause and of the revised Schedule, some powers to do compulsorily something that is not acquisition of land or of rights or interests in it, and for which there is no compensation for them. That is what worries me. In the old Clause 63 it is quite clear what the powers are. They are set out in subsection (1) as:
"powers needed for the purpose of constructing, altering, improving, maintaining or removing any buildings or works …"
The new clause contains no such definition. I hope that my noble friend will look at this point again, and be a little more strict in his drafting, so that owners of land who might be affected by these powers know where they are and do not face some vague power which they do not have the means of combating. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for raising this point. I should like an answer some time.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I would say to my noble friend that I think it is very right and proper that any Member of your Lordships' House should be jealous of the powers given under any legislation we may pass and to make sure that we are not doing anything we should not wish to do. He has put forward a highly complicated legal argument, and
1100
he must not expect me to answer it on this occasion. There would certainly appear to be good cause for looking again at this clause and we shall do so. If we then find that there is something in what he says, and that the powers need to be limited by the addition of further words to this clause, then we will do what is required. But if there is an explanation, I will write to my noble friend and let him know what it is. If any particular action needs to be taken, he can rest assured that we shall take it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Special provisions for protection of water against pollution]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 62, Which your Lordships approved a moment or so ago. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) In this section 'land' includes any interest in or right over land; and section 61 (4) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 as that Act has effect in accordance with subsection (1) of this section.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [General powers in relation to land]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, consequential on No. 66A, which we have just been discussing with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross referring to engineering or building operations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("of") in line 24 and insert ("(subject to the provisions of section 67 of this Act) have power to carry out such engineering or building operations as they consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of any").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67 [Supplementary provisions to powers in relation to land and works]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this new subsection re-enacts, with slight drafting variations, Section 13 (3) of the River Boards Act, 1948. It provides that

1101
the powers conferred by Clauses 61 and 66 of the Bill relating to land and works are without prejudice to certain special powers of acquisition conferred by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, or by Section 76 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. The powers in the Act of 1923 relate to such matters as fishing rights and easements for purposes specified in the Act. Section 76 of the Act of 1930 deals with the acquisition of accretions of land resulting from land drainage works. The new subsection does not empower river authorities to do anything which river boards cannot do at the present time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The preceding provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect without prejudice to the exercise by river authorities of any power conferred by the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923 or by section 76 of the Land Drainage Act 1930 (which relates to the acquisition of accretions of land resulting from drainage works and land required in connection therewith).").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Control of discharges into underground strata]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is another small Amendment. It is designed to close a gap in the control mechanism by making it plain that failure to comply with a condition of consent to discharge effluent or the other nasty things listed in Clause 68 (1) (b) into underground strata by means of a well or borehole is an offence, even if the discharge itself takes place with the consent of the river authority given under Clause 68. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 27, at end insert ("or (in circumstances not constituting such a contravention) does not comply with a condition subject to which a consent granted under this section for the time being has effect").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Revocation or variation of consent under s. 68.]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to clarify the intention of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 21, at end insert ("either on the application of that person or without any such application").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is an Amendment to bring into line a previous Amendment moved at Committee stage regarding Clause 43 to make it possible for the Minister to make a variation with the consent of the person concerned. Without that addition the whole procedural process of appeal would have to be gone through a second time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 5, leave out from second ("or") to end of line 7 and insert ("in the case of an appeal against a variation, may, with the consent of the person to whom the consent was granted, determine that it shall be varied in a way different from that specified in the notice under subsection (1) of this section").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Borings not requiring licences under Part IV]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which makes a minor correction in the Bill by omitting reference to subsection (6) of Clause 39. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 6 and insert ("The decision of the Minister on any appeal under this section shall be final; and section 39 (5) of this Act (with the substitution, for references to the applicant, of references to the appellant) and section 52 (2) of this Act shall apply")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE moved, after Clause 71, to insert the following new clause
Further provision as to water discharged from mines
".—(1) In this section "mine" has the meaning assigned to it by section 180 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954.
(2) Where, after the end of the initial period, a person proposes to cease to make a discharge to which this section applies in a river authority area or to alter substantially the volume or rate of flow of such a discharge (whether as a result of a decision to abandon or discontinue the working of a mine or any part thereof or otherwise) he shall, not less than twelve months (or such less period as the river authority may agree to) before he ceases to

1103
make the discharge or alters substantially the volume or rate of flow thereof, give to the river authority a notice of his intention in the prescribed form:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply where a person proposes to cease to make a discharge or to alter the volume or rate of flow thereof temporarily for the purpose of renewing, repairing or maintaining works, machinery or apparatus used in connection with the making of the discharge.
(3) This section applies to any discharge to a watercourse of water raised or drained from any underground part of a mine, not being a temporary discharge.
(4) Any person who contravenes subsection (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction, to a fine:
Provided that an offence under this section shall not be punishable on summary conviction by a fine exceeding one hundred pounds."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in whose name this Amendment is put down, very much regrets his inability to be here and has asked me to convey his regrets to your Lordships and, with your Lordships' permission, to move it for him. He is in fact laid up with influenza.
There are certain companies engaged in industry, including some of the steel companies, who rely for part of their industrial supplies on water discharged from mines into water courses. While mine waters are water resources within the meaning of Clause 2 of the Bill, and as such will, for example, have to be taken into account by river authorities in carrying out surveys under Clause 14, abstractions of mine water by virtue of Clause 24 (3) will not have to be licensed under Part IV of the Bill. Mine water is normally discharged into a water course and in certain cases it constitutes virtually the whole flow of that water course. A company abstracting water for industrial purposes from that water course at a point downstream would therefore be vitally concerned to see that this discharge was not diminished or stopped altogether without due notice being given.
A policy decision to close an uneconomic mine could result in such a discharge being stopped entirely, and in that event any industrial undertaking which was dependent upon that source of supply might grind to a halt unless there were sufficient time to arrange for an alternative source to be made available. It is not, of course, suggested that
1104
an uneconomic mine should be kept open purely in order that water should continue to be pumped from it, but it is submitted that, for example, where a mine is to be closed and as a result a source of supply for industry will cease, the river authority concerned should be given sufficient notice to enable an alternative source of supply to be made available.
While it may be true to say that a company relying upon such supplies must recognise the risk attached to the considerations of that particular source, the general controls to be imposed in this Bill in future might put a company in such a position that it would be dependent upon the remedial action that the river board could take. Moreover, it is submitted that, as a matter of principle, this is the sort of situation with which a river authority ought to have power to deal in the exercise of their new functions, and that neither the river authority nor the company can deal with it effectively unless there is due notice. Clause 71 of the Bill at it stands does not really deal with the points covered in this new Amendment. Clause 71 refers to new works constructed after the initial period, and while it might be reasonable for the river authority to include in any conservation notices under subsection (3) of that clause a condition regarding the notice to be given if it were proposed to discontinue a particular abstraction, there is no obligation on the river authority to do that. Moreover, as I have already indicated, Clause 71 as it stands refers to abstractions as a result of works constructed after the initial period.
It is, I believe, the fact that, in so far as National Coal Board collieries are concerned, there is a standing arrangement whereby a colliery gives due notice of any substantial diminution or cessation of discharge of water from the mine, but that does not cover all cases. There are mines other than those of the National Coal Board. In so far as the arrangement I have referred to already works, there surely can be no objection to a provision which makes that practice a statutory obligation. In view of the arguments I have endeavoured to advance, I hope very much that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, which

1105
would seem to be not only reasonable but necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 71, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sinclair of Cleeve)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has put this predicament of certain industries very clearly, and it is a case with which we certainly sympathise. It is not at all an easy matter to deal with, and the clause as drafted does in fact present some practical difficulties which I will explain. The Government could not accept the clause without further study to make quite sure that it would have no adverse effects upon the position of river authorities. We certainly do not think it would be fair to expect a river authority to become responsible for maintaining a discharge of underground water of this kind after the reason for making it had ceased to apply; in other words, after the mine had closed. The noble Lord recognised that a mine could hardly be expected to go on pumping water after it had no use for it. We find it difficult to believe it should become an obligation upon the river authority to do anything like that.
If as a result of any notice the river authority became responsible for replacing a supply which had been provided by way of this discharge, complications might arise under Clause 48 (3). That deals with the legal liabilities of river authorities and the action that can be taken against them; there is also a reference in that clause to river authorities being able to make a defence for emergency, drought, act of God and so on, and unforeseen act or event. This would not be an "unforeseen act or event" because they would have twelve months' notice of it, and there is a legal complication in that respect over what the responsibilities and liabilities of the river authority should be in this particular case.
Apart from that, it is very difficult, I am told, to give twelve months' notice in all cases because one cannot always foresee the closure of a mine as far ahead as that, and, in any case, to make an announcement of it before all the various arrangements between the Coal Board and its employees had been
1106
made would be obviously undesirable, if not impossible. The water is discharged from the mine only because it must be discharged if minerals are to continue to be won. If for any natural reason a lesser quantity can be discharged without detriment to the working of the mine, obviously the mine operator must be allowed to take full advantage of that circumstance. Our advice is that quite substantial variations of the necessary discharge may occur with little warning. Presumably that is a risk to which the people using these discharges are already subjected. Therefore the Government take the view that formal arrangements on the lines of this clause would be too burdensome.
On the other hand, we think that, as in the past, administrative arrangements which have mostly been made between the National Coal Board and the users of these discharges have been found to work quite well and have ensured that information about the cessation or alteration of discharges was received in good time by the public authorities who needed it. The Minister is certainly prepared to consider adapting and extending these administrative arrangements to meet the circumstances outlined by the noble Lord. In our view, it would be better to tackle the problem in this way, and we think it is probably the best answer to how we can keep the river authority informed, rather than by making it a statutory obligation as the noble Lord has suggested. It is a matter which is receiving further study, but that is the gist of our thinking at the present stage, and I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied. As I say, we shall certainly take this into consideration in any administrative arrangements that are to be made by the Minister, and if we come to any further conclusions, then we shall come again to Parliament and say so.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say a word or two? This is a problem with which the river boards, or the new river boards in certain areas, will be intimately concerned, and the Association of River Authorities have already made a preliminary study of the Amendment on the Marshalled List. In those circumstances, I am sure that the Minister or Department concerned will be glad to have the observations of the Association

1107
which I believe, on the whole, are sympathetic to the Amendment on the Marshalled List.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for the support that he indicates may be forthcoming from the river boards on this Amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am not sure that I can say that those on whose behalf I am moving this Amendment will be altogether satisfied with it. I would, however, say straight away that, so far as the period of notice is concerned, although in the Amendment we say "not less than 12 months," I am sure that is a matter that could be discussed. I do not think we need to be at all rigid about that period of notice. What we want is reasonable, practical notice of any substantial diminution or of complete cessation.
I feel, however, with regard to the position of the river authorities in this matter, that although we would not suggest that the river authorities must assume the responsibility for the continuance of this supply or even the equivalent, they have a duty to see that the needs of their area are, as far as possible, satisfied. Within that general obligation, I think it quite reasonable to insist that in the event of certain substantial diminutions in, or stoppages of, such supplies, due notice should be given to the river authorities and the actual abstracters who are immediately concerned. That would help to safeguard the position. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to include that last point in his further consideration of the matter.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, I will do that.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 [Byelaws for protection of water resources]:
5.15 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is another in the series of Government Amendments designed to incorporate references to harbour authorities and conservancy authorities in those clauses
1108
where, at present, only navigation authorities are cited. The earlier clauses so amended were Clause 19 (4) (c), Clause 28 (1) (b) and Clause 42 (2). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 2, at end insert ("harbour authority or conservancy authority").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is the first of a group of Government Amendments (the others are the new clause after Clause 106 and in Schedules 2 and 9) which it is necessary to make in the provisions relating to by-laws, so as to deal with by-laws relating to fisheries and prevention of pollution of streams. All the Amendments are in the nature of machinery provisions and do not raise new points of principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 19, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) No byelaw made by virtue of subsection (3) of this section, or by virtue of section 18 of the Water Act 1945 as applied by subsection (1) of this section, shall conflict or interfere with the operation of any byelaw made by a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority.").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Future transfers of functions or property of other authorities and undertakings]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment opening the way for the Schedule to be added to the Bill after Schedule 8. The provision made by the deleted subsection is re-enacted in paragraph 1 of the new Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The provisions of Schedule (Orders transferring functions or property of other authorities and undertakings) to this Act shall have effect with respect to applications and orders under this section.").—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, perhaps we could have our discussion at this stage; it will save time later when we come to the Schedule. We are now dealing with Amendment No. 77. The Amendment put down, together with that in regard to the Schedule, more than meets

1109
the point raised in Committee. I think it effects a considerable improvement on the Bill as it stands. It is certainly an improvement on the Amendments which I moved on the Committee stage. The Amendment, together with that in the Schedule, will go a long way to satisfying the statutory water undertakers. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Water resources accounts of river authorities]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting and correcting Amendment. It brings in Clause 73 (3) as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 10, leave out ("(2)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. References to harbour authorities and conservancy authorities are added, as they have been in previous Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 22, after first ("authority") insert ("harbour authority or conservancy authority").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 26, at end insert—
("(e) any contributions received by the authority under section (Contributions between river authorites and certain other authorities) of this Act").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS, My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 35, after ("authority") insert ("harbour authority or conservancy authority").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I am afraid I let No. 78B slip by formally, but actually it belongs with 78D. Both Amendments are linked with the proposed new clause after Clause 82. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 44, at end insert ("and
(c) any contributions paid by the authority under section (Contributions between river authorities and certain other authorities) of this Act").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after Clause 78 to insert the following new clause
Investment of moneys in reserve and replacement funds
".—(1) Where a river authority maintain a reserve fund, any moneys for the time being comprised in that fund shall, pending the application thereof in accordance with Section 77 (4) of this Act, be invested in accordance with the following provisions of this Section.
(2) Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 12 and 13 of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (which relate to the investment powers of trustees) shall have effect in relation to any such moneys, and in relation to any investments or other property for the time being representing any such moneys, as if they constituted a trust fund and the river authority were the trustees of that trust fund; and section 7 (2) of that Act (which relates to certain local and other authorities) shall have effect in relation to Sections 1, 2, 5 and 6 of that Act as applied by this subsection as it has effect in relation to those Sections as applied by Section 7(1) of that Act.
(3) River authorities shall be included among the authorities to which Section 11 of that Act applies (which relates to the operation of collective investment schemes).
(4) Any income arising from any such moneys, investments or property as are mentioned in subsection (2) of this Section shall be treated as revenue available generally for defraying any expenses of the river authority which do not fall to be debited to their water resources account or paid out of the reserve fund or any replacement fund maintained by them.
(5) Where any income is treated as mentioned in the last preceding subsection, there shall be paid into the reserve fund, from revenue available as mentioned in that subsection, a sum equal to the amount of that income:
Provided that if the payment of a sum under this subsection would contravene any restriction imposed by Section 77 (3) of this Act, then, so far as may be necessary for avoiding any such contravention, the sum so payable shall be reduced, or, as the case may require, shall not be paid.
(6) The provisions of this Section shall have effect in relation to a replacement fund maintained by a river authority as they have effect in relation to a reserve fund so maintained, with the substitution, for the reference to Section 77 (4), of the reference to Section 78 (2), and for the reference to Section 77 (3), of a reference to Section 78 (4) of this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause provides for the investment

1111
of moneys in reserve and replacement funds of river authorities. To those of your Lordships who are experts in these matters the new clause will, I think, be quite straightforward and self-explanatory. Nevertheless, I should like to say just a word about subsection (3). This will make it possible for river authorities to invest in the Local Authority Mutual Investment Trust by providing that they are to be among the authorities to which Section 11 of the Act of 1961 applies. This was the object of an Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, moved in Committee. Your Lordships will remember that he withdrew his Amendment after I had undertaken that we would consult the local authority associations on this point. We have now done so. I think it will be fair to say that the associations have no objection to the provision. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, with his usual powers of prophecy, suggested in Committee, it would perhaps be fairer to say that they would welcome it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 78 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, again I rise to express appreciation for an undertaking which has been fully and faithfully kept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Precepts by river authorities]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to correct an omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 39, at end insert ("for the relevant year").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after Clause 82 to insert the following new clause:
Contributions between river authorities and certain other authorities
".—(1) Where, on the application of a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority, it appears to a river authority that any works constructed or maintained by the applicants (whether before or after the passing of this Act) have made, or will make, a beneficial contribution towards the fulfilment of the purposes of the river authority's new functions, the river authority shall contribute to the applicant's such sums, on such terms and con-
1112
ditions, as they and the applicants may agree to be appropriate towards the expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the applicants in constructing or maintaining those works.
(2) Where, on the application of a river authority, it appears to a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority that any works constructed or maintained by a river authority in the performance of their new functions have made, or will make, a beneficial contribution towards the performance of the functions of the authority to whom the application is made, that authority shall contribute to the river authority such sums, on such terms and conditions, as they and the river authority may agree to be appropriate towards the expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the river authority in constructing or maintaining those works.
(3) If, on any application under this section, the authority to whom the application is made (in this subsection referred to as "the other authority concerned") refuse to make a contribution or the applicants and the other authority concerned are unable to agree as to the sums to be contributed or the terms and conditions on which they are to be contributed,—

(a) the applicants or the other authority concerned may refer the matter in dispute to the Minister and the Minister of Transport, and

(b) those Ministers may either determine that matter themselves or may refer it for determination to an arbitrator appointed by them for the purpose;

and any decision of those Ministers or of an arbitrator under paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be final, and the other authority concerned shall contribute in accordance with the decision as if the sums, or the terms and conditions, determined under that paragraph had been agreed to be appropriate as mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, as the case may be.
(4) Any expenditure incurred by a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority in paying any contribution under this section shall be defrayed in the like manner as any corresponding expenditure of that authority; and the authority shall have the like powers for the purpose of raising money required for paying any such contribution as they would have for the purpose of raising money required for defraying any such corresponding expenditure.
(5) In the last preceding subsection any reference to corresponding expenditure of a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority is a reference to expenditure incurred by the authority in performing the functions in respect of which it is claimed by the applicants that the works in question have made, or will make, a beneficial contribution as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause may look rather formidable, but I can assure noble Lords that it is, in essence, simple and straightforward. Its genesis is to be found in paragraph 38 of the White Paper. That paragraph

1113
included the statement that—and I quote:
"The Government consider that there should be financial recognition of benefits to conservation from works carried out by navigation authorities."
This unexceptionable principle is embodied in the new clause. In the interests of fair play, it also makes provision for the converse case—namely, when navigation benefits from works carried out by river authorities in discharging their new conservation functions. I commend the new clause to the House as a simple and just provision regulating one aspect of the functions of two sorts of statutory bodies concerned with inland waters.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 82 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Borrowing powers]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is a minor Amendment. Clause 83 (2) (a) provides that a river authority may borrow money for, among other things, the acquisition of land. This addition to paragraph (a) will extend this particular borrowing power to the acquisition of any interest in, or right over, land which an authority may wish to obtain. It is possible, for example, that the cost of acquiring a new wayleave for a pipe-line may be sufficient to justify borrowing money on mortgage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 6, at end insert ("or of any interest in or right over land").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is another small Amendment. It represents no change in our intent but is merely designed to spell out that intent rather more clearly. Clause 83 (2) (d) authorises a river authority to borrow money on mortgage for the purpose of repaying a loan. This Amendment makes clear that this applies to money borrowed by the authority's predecessors for the purposes of the transferred functions and that the predecessors need not necessarily be the immediate predecessors of the authority. Indeed, under it not only the overdrafts
1114
of the fathers but also those of the grandfathers may be visited on the sons. This principle may seem rather harsh, but I think it is unexceptionable when we realise that the original borrowing could have been by a catchment board from whom the functions were transferred to a river board from whom, in turn, they were transferred to a river authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved——
Page 69, line 13, leave out from ("or") to end of line 15 and insert ("borrowed by a river board or other body for the purposes of functions which, by or under this Act, are transferred (whether from that body or another body) to the river authority").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [General provisions for transfer of assets and liabilities]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, at present there is some overlapping between Clauses 85 and Schedule 2. This Amendment and the linked Amendment in the Schedule correct it. The Amendment itself is little more than drafting. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 36, after ("schemes") insert ("regulations, awards").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary to repair an omission from Clause 85, which contains provisions for the transfer of river authorities' assets and liabilities to river boards. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Any legal proceedings or applications to any other authority to which the board is a party and which are pending on the second appointed day may be continued on and after that day as if the authority instead of the board had been a party thereto.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, upon further consideration it has been found that this subsection is inapplicable in the context of river boards; therefore it is deleted. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 6, leave out subsection (7).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is little more than drafting. Its purpose is to secure that any antecedent documents are read as if they had been amended to refer to the river board concerned, thereby ensuring that they are caught by subsection (4) of Clause 85, which provides for them to be read as referring to the river authority which supersedes the river board concerned. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72 line 11, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section any agreement or other document in relation to which the provisions of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section 25 of the River Boards Act 1948 had effect (which subsections contained provisions corresponding to subsections (3) to (5) of this section) shall be treated as having been amended by that section so as to have effect in accordance with those provisions.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Pension rights]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("subject to the next following subsection").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Supplementary provisions as to pension rights]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved to insert after subsection (2):
"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the last preceding subsection, where immediately before the second appointed day it was the prevailing practice of the board to exercise beneficially (that is to say, so as to secure the payment of pensions or of increased pensions) any discretionary power exercisable by them by virtue of any such statutory provision as is mentioned in subsection (3) of the last preceding section, it shall, in relation to officers or servants to whom the said subsection (3) applies, be the duty of the authority to exercise that power (or any corresponding power under the statutory provisions relating to pensions for the time being in force) in a way which is not less beneficial than that practice; and section 35 of the Act of 1937 shall apply to any question arising under this subsection."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to make crystal clear the effect of the Bill on the exercise by river authorities of various discretionary powers under the local government superannuation scheme where it has been the prevailing practice of the
1116
river boards to exercise such discretion. The sort of discretionary powers I have in mind are the granting of a gratuity under Section 18 of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953. The new subsection will oblige a river authority to treat an employee transferred from a river board no less generously than he would have been treated by the board immediately before such a transfer. The river authority are, of course, not thereby precluded from affording their employees more generous treatment if they see fit. Moreover, nothing in the new subsection cuts across what is said in Clause 88 (2) about "customary obligations". Under that subsection there is a right of appeal to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government under Section 35 of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, about an employee's rights. The new subsection (3) similarly provides for questions arising under the subsection to be determined by the Minister under Section 35 of the Act of 1937. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, on behalf of the staff concerned may I say just one word of appreciation for this Amendment and for what it implies?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as you may surmise, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 14, after ("with") insert ("and to the extent specified in").—(Earl Jellicoe)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
"( ) Without prejudice to the last preceding subsection, where for the purposes of any such statutory provision as is mentioned in subsection (3) of the last preceding section the board (if this Act had not been passed) would at any time on or after the second appointed day have been the employing authority in relation to—

(a) a person who before that day died while in the employment of the board, or otherwise ceased to be employed by the board, or

(b) the widow or any other dependant of such a person,

the authority shall be treated as being at that time the employing authority for those purposes in relation to that person, or to that

1117
person's widow or other dependant, as the case may be."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that in relation to a former employee of a river board, or to his widow or dependant, the successor river authority are to be entitled to exercise any functions as "employing authority" which the river board they succeeded could have exercised. In particular, the Amendment will empower a river authority to review from time to time the amount of any injury allowance granted to a former employee or his widow or dependant by the river board under Regulation 7 of the Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) Regulations, 1954. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Provisions where river authority area comprises two river board areas]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is little more than drafting. It ensures that any reference in an agreement or document to the area of one of the two river boards is still to be read as a reference to that area after the amalgamation of areas has taken place and a single river authority has superseded the two river boards. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 12, at end insert—
("(2) Section 85 of this Act, as applied by the preceding subsection, shall not affect the construction of any reference in an agreement or other document to the area of either of the boards.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Compensation of officers and servants]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 100, for which it paves the way by deleting Clause 90. That clause is substantially re-enacted by Amendment No. 100. That Amendment, however, extends the compensation provisions of this Bill in certain respects. It is not appropriate, in our view, to retain the clause in its extended form in this Part of the Bill, Part IX, since in its amended form
1118
the clause will also refer to provisions of Parts II and VII of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 90.—(Earl Jellicoe)
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the noble Earl will remember that on the Committee stage I raised the point about whether the clause was wide enough in some of its provisions. I am glad to see that it has been looked at afresh, and I am authorised on behalf of the National and Local Government Officers' Association to say that this Amendment is completely satisfactory, and to express the appreciation of that body to the Minister for the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Saving for acts of river boards]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the next three Amendments can be taken together. Their purpose is to fill a small gap in the clause, and to add those things which ought not to be invalidated by reason of a transfer of the functions of a river board, or upon the dissolution of a river board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 40, after ("approval") insert ("consent, resolution, rate, precept, charge").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 1, leave out ("or given") and insert ("given, passed, issued or raised").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 5, after ("given") insert ("passed, issued, raised").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is a pure drafting point. It is thought that the new subsection (2) is an improvement on the existing one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 6, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject and without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, and to the provisions (where applicable) of Schedule 2 to this Act, every such matter as is mentioned in the preceding subsection, in so far as it could have been effected by the river authority to whom the functions of the river board are transferred by section 5 of this Act, shall have effect, as from the second appointed day, as if it had been effected by that river authority.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 93 to insert the following new clause:
Protection of duty of statutory water undertakers to supply water for domestic purposes
".—(1) In the performance of their functions under subsections (1) and (2) of section 14 of this Act, a river authority shall have particular regard to the duty of any relevant statutory water undertakers to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes.
(2) In the preceding subsection 'relevant statutory water undertakers' means any statutory water undertakers who fulfil any one or more of the following conditions, that is to say

(a) that any part of the area of the river authority falls within their limits of supply:

(b) that they are the holders of a licence under this Act to abstract water from a source of supply in that area;

(c) that they have made an application to the river authority for such a licence or have given notice to the river authority of their intention to make such an application.

(3) In dealing with any application or appeal by statutory water undertakers under Part IV of this Act, and in formulating, proceeding with or considering any proposals for the variation or revocation of a licence under this Act of which statutory water undertakers are the holders, a river authority or the Minister, as the case may be, shall have particular regard to the duty of those undertakers to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes.
(4) In this section 'duty' means a duty imposed by or under an enactment, and 'a supply of water for domestic purposes' and 'limits of supply' have the same meanings as in Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause has been put down as a result of the long discussions we had during the Committee stage, and as a result of my firm undertaking that the position of the statutory water undertakers would be specifically safeguarded in the Bill. This, of course, is the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and my
1120
noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve have presumably been waiting for throughout this Report stage, as many other Amendments they have moved before really hang upon it. The noble Lord opposite and my noble friend behind me have some Amendments down to this Amendment, and I shall reserve my reply upon them. But if I may at this stage, I should like to outline the Government approach to this matter.
The clause first of all requires a river authority, in carrying out their duties under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 14 (that is to say, making a survey of demand, preparing an estimate of future demand and formulating proposals for action, and periodically reviewing all these things), to have particular regard to the duty of the relevant statutory water undertakers to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes. In subsection (2) the relevant statutory water undertakers are defined, and I would direct your Lordships' attention to those definitions. In subsection (2) (a) the first relevant statutory water undertaker is to be one whose supply falls within the area of the river authority; that is to say, any statutory water undertaker who supplies the population lying inside a certain river authority, although the undertaker is itself outside that area, is included in this clause.
For example, the City of Birmingham supplies a considerable area in the Trent River Authority, but it draws its water from quite a different authority, in the valleys of the Wye and the Severn. But in spite of that, when considering the forward demand for water, the Trent River Authority will have to consult with the City of Birmingham to see what are the likely future requirements for the supply of those people who live within the Trent River Authority area. It will probably happen that Birmingham will be quite happy and will continue to draw its water from the Wye and the Severn. But there is the necessity for consultation and for liaison between the two river authorities in this case, to make quite sure that in shaping policy for the future the Trent River Authority will bear in mind the future requirements of the people supplied from Birmingham.
That can now be read in conjunction with subsection (2) (c), because there the definition of "relevant statutory water

1121
undertakers" is extended to include those who have
"made an application to the river authority for such a licence or have given notice to the river authority of their intention to make such an application."
As a result of subsection (2) (a), in the case of Birmingham it might result from these consultations that Birmingham would at some future time wish to make such an application, and they would warn the authority of their intention. On the other hand, subsection (2) (c) would apply immediately to the case of Manchester, because they would be drawing their water from a source of supply in a different river authority area—namely, the Cumberland area. Therefore, the definition of a statutory water undertaker is a very important part of this clause; and, of course, in subsection (2) (b), there is the normal case of
"…the holders of a licence under this Act to abstract water from a source of supply in that"
particular river authority area.
I think it should be quite clear from this that we are trying to make this clause as comprehensive as possible, and to make quite sure that, in the planning of water resources, no possible requirement of any statutory water undertaker, whether it be in that particular area or outside it, is overlooked. As I said, subsection (2) (c), reflects the importance of forward planning in water conservation matters, which is what we are particularly aiming at, and we feel that water undertakers should and will make river authorities aware at a very early stage of their future needs, and should be able to settle in principle how these are to be met. The river authority, for its part, in discharging its duties under Clause 14, subsections (1) and (2), should take full account of what it knows about the future needs of statutory undertakers when authorising licences for abstraction within its area as a result of this new clause, subsections (1) and (2).
To turn now to subsection (3), this, of course, deals with the normal day-to-day exercise of the powers of licensing abstraction. It requires a river authority and the Minister, in dealing with applications or appeals by statutory water undertakers, or with proposals for varying or revoking licences held by them, similarly
1122
to have particular regard to the duty of the water undertakers in respect of the supply of water for domestic purposes. The statutory water undertakers have a right to expect that the river authorities will be particularly sensitive to their needs, and that they will take particular care to see that their demands are provided for. On the other hand, we feel that they do not have a claim on any and every occasion to the sources of that choice—and this came out when we were discussing the Amendment on Tuesday. The statutory water undertakers should also bear in mind, I think, that the Bill provides a right of appeal to the Minister of Housing, who is responsible for the well-being of the water supply industry just as he is for the business of water conservation.
Therefore, my Lords, we feel that we have really gone a very long way to meet the objections of the statutory water undertakings so carefully put by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, in past Amendments, and we feel that we have lived up to our undertaking to put something into this Bill which would safeguard their position in a very full manner. Therefore, in spite of the Amendments put down by the noble Lords, I hope that they will be able to agree to the Government Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 93, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would again thank the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, for so fully setting out the Government's approach to the problem, and I will give them credit for having made a genuine attempt to deal with the problem. But we do not think that they have gone anywhere near far enough in so far as the Amendment that they have set down is concerned, because of the restrictive nature of the clause. The new clause, as the noble Lord has quite rightly said, requires a river authority when dealing with the licensing of statutory water undertakers to have particular regard to the duty of their providing a supply of

1123
water for domestic purposes in the performance of their functions under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of this Bill.
The proposed clause is restrictive because it implies that, in the performance of other functions under the Bill, and in particular when dealing with applications for licences made by abstracters other than the statutory water undertakers, the river authority is not to have particular regard to the statutory duties of the water undertaker to afford a supply for domestic purposes. I would suggest that it is restrictive, too, because it is limited to give a supply for domestic purposes, and does not take into account supplies for public purposes which may be, and so often are in certain circumstances, equally important or more important. The first Amendment to subsection (1) of the Government's new clause is intended to remove one of these restrictions, and to ensure that the river authority has particular regard to these duties of the statutory water undertaking when the river authority is performing any function under the Bill. In the outline which the noble Lord has just given of the Government's approach to the problem, that seemed far from clear.
The second Amendment to subsection (1) of the Government's new clause brings the supply of water for public services into consideration. The supply of water for public services is referred to in Part VIII of the Third Schedule of the Water Act, 1945, and it includes the supply of water for such vital purposes as fire fighting, the cleansing of sewers and drains, the cleansing of highways, public pumps, public baths and wash-houses—all very vital public health functions which are the duty of the statutory water undertaker. I agree that the third Amendment is not necessary if the Government are going to accept the Amendments to subsection (1), but, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I did not gather that he was over-anxious to accept the first two Amendments, and, therefore, perhaps, as they are on the Order Paper, I might deal as well with them now and so save dealing with them later.
Of course, Amendment No. 97C would not be necessary if, as I mentioned, the other Amendments to subsection (1) are accepted, because all the functions of a river authority will be referred to in
1124
subsection (1) and it is appreciated that the deletion of Subsection (3) means the omission of reference to the Minister. It is thought it is not necessary because the Minister's duties in respect of public water supplies are already covered by the Water Act of 1945. As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, in putting forward the point of view for the Government Amendment, there is no doubt that any Minister responsible for public water supply will not fail to have particular regard to the duties of the statutory water undertaker. I hope that on this occasion we can come a little nearer to agreement than on Clause 29 and our subsequent discussions. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In subsection (I) leave out ("subsections (1) and (2) of section 14 of").—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that at first sight it might appear that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and I were presuming to paint the lily of the Government Amendment, and, indeed, failing in the process to recognise the great trouble that has been taken (as the noble Lord Lord Hastings, said) to give effect to this from the point of view of the statutory water undertaker—a very important point. I would assure the noble Lord that we are indeed grateful for the effort he has made, and we are not merely "painting the lily".
There are two points of substance in Amendment 97A and Amendment 97B. The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has made it clear, I hope, that as Amendment No. 97 stands, it could have a restrictive effect which I am sure is contrary to the intention of the Department. Further, I think it would be, if I may say so, a necessary improvement to add the words "and public" to the word "domestic" because I understand that the word "domestic" does not include the public supplies required for health purposes, fire-fighting and so forth, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, referred. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said it was the intention and desire of his Department to endeavour to see that this recognition of the duty imposed on the statutory water undertakers by reason of their statutory obligations should be duly considered. Indeed, as they say in this Amendment, "particular

1125
regard" should be paid to them. He said it was their endeavour to make that particular regard as comprehensive as possible. I submit that this Amendment to the Amendment does just that. I beg to support it.
5.55 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said that the Government Amendment was of a restrictive nature, and he was supported in this contention by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. One comparatively small point he made was that it was restrictive, in the sense that it does not take account of other public purposes such as those laid down in Part VIII of the Third Schedule to the Water Act, 1945—allowing for fire-fighting, cleaning of sewers and so on. I am informed that the amount of water used in this way is comparatively small and the Government have no objection to including these words in this clause. So I think we can dispose of that particular restriction in a friendly manner.
But, coming to the wider picture, I have to differ from both noble Lords. In fact, we believe that our Amendment is more comprehensive and better than it would be with the alteration proposed by the noble Lords. In the first place, the effect of adopting the two Amendments 97A and 97C would be that subsection (1), as amended, would refer to all the functions of a river authority. The first objection to that is that there cannot be any reason why, in assessing the requirements of water undertakings, the river authorities must bring into consideration the transferred functions. The statutory water undertakings cannot really have any reason for their requirements becoming a sort of interference (if I may put it in that way) with, for example, the problems of land drainage and fisheries. If it were necessary to bring in more than we have in our Amendment, I think it would be more reasonable to propose that at least the river authorities should be required to have particular regard to these statutory duties of any relevant statutory water undertaker in respect of the new functions which they have to carry out under the Act. That is the first point I have to make in criticism of the noble Lords' Amendments.
1126
The second point arises from the definition of "relevant statutory water undertaker" in subsection (2). The noble Lords' Amendment would mean that the whole Act is lumped together and that, even when considering applications for abstraction licences or impounding works, the Trent River Authority, say (to go on with the example I chose before), would have to consult Birmingham Corporation. We think that that is getting down to such niggling details of administration as to be a real interference with the efficiency of the river authorities in question. We think that, by specifying quite clearly the duties, and focusing attention upon them (first in regard of Clause 14, where the relevant statutory water undertaker is defined in a very wide comprehensive manner, as I explained a few minutes ago) we are doing much more to ensure that, in planning, the statutory duties of water undertakings will be considered in the very beginning. Therefore they are much more likely to have no difficulty in the future in getting the supplies they want, because there will now be a statutory duty placed upon the river authority to consider their requirements—wherever those undertakers may have their headquarters, within or without the authority. They will be taken into consideration and planned for right at the beginning.
If there is no specific instruction to carry out this form of consultation under Clause 14, we feel that it could be overlooked, if a river authority were not on its toes. We do not want to bring into Part IV the same definition of "relevant statutory water undertaking", because we think that only the water undertakings which are relevant to the operation of the Bill are those which are actually applying for licences to abstract water in the area or building impounding works. We feel that by focusing attention on the two Parts of the Bill referred to in this Amendment we are much more sure of producing the result than we should be if we applied the Amendment in the more general sense which noble Lords have suggested. Therefore I hope that they will feel that it is better to leave the Government Amendment as it stands while we arrange the addition of the words in their Amendment No. 97B.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, may I reciprocate in a friendly manner and take advantage of the offer of the noble

1127
Lord to include the words about public water supply? I would join the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, in appreciation of what has been done to meet the point of view of those responsible for statutory water undertakings. If the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, were in the Bill, I am certain that the fears which have been expressed by the undertakers would not exist. All that they are concerned about is that the river authorities shall take into account the needs of statutory undertakers when they are giving away water to other abstracters, so that the granting of any other licences for abstraction to other persons and interests will not in any way prejudice the supply of the statutory undertakers and their obligations to the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said—I am paraphrasing him, of course—that the function of the river authority is to plan so that there is no difficulty of supply and that the demands of the statutory water undertakers in meeting their statutory obligations are planned for well in advance. If that is the effect, then, of course, the statutory undertakers have no need to fear. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for the time, thought and attention that he has given to this matter. Perhaps we are not so satisfied as we ought to be, but we hope that we shall be proved wrong when the Bill comes into operation. If it is operated in the manner described by the noble Lord, then I am certain that our fears are groundless, and with the permission of the House I would withdraw my Amendment. My next Amendment, I understand, was accepted in principle and will be a matter of drafting by the Government later on, and I shall not move that Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HURCOMB LORD HURCOMB moved, after Clause 93, to insert the following new clause:
Land of special natural interest
". Where the Nature Conservancy are of opinion that any area of land, not being land for the time being managed as a nature reserve, is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features and may at any time be affected by
1128
schemes, operations or activities of a River Authority, it shall be the duty of the Conservancy to notify that fact to the river authority in whose area the land is situated."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this new clause which I propose is to facilitate the work of Clause 93, which your Lordships have already accepted. Under Section 23 of the National Parks Act, 1949, it is the duty of the Nature Conservancy to notify to the local planning authority any area of land, not being an area of a nature reserve, which in their opinion is of special scientific interest. This is intended to ensure, and in practice does ensure, that before authorising any change in use within the meaning of the planning Acts—in which, of course, there are some gaps with which all naturalists do not agree—the planning authority ascertain and listen to any views or objections which the Nature Conservancy may have to the proposed change or development. This applies equally to the Minister, if the proposal or scheme ever reaches that stage. Apart from a few unfortunate oversights, the procedure has been found to work well, to avoid clashes of interest and, in some cases, to lead to satisfactory adjustments.
I suggest that an Amendment of the kind which I propose will have a similar effect. It will place on the Nature Conservancy an obligation to notify river authorities of any land of special scientific interest in their areas, and the Conservancy would no doubt send copies of these notifications to the Water Resources Board. It would then, I suggest, be reasonable for the Minister to give a direction to the river authorities under Clause 95, as he is entitled to do, requiring them to consult the Conservancy at the earliest possible stage about any scheme, operations or activities likely to affect the areas of which they have been notified. This procedure would involve no duality of control. It would not be burdensome to either side. I submit, however, that it would help to create at all stages an atmosphere of confidence and co-operation between the engineers and the biologists and enable alterations or modifications of schemes to be carried out without making differences a matter of prestige and policy.
Those who have suffered so often in the past from insufficient regard being paid to the considerations to which

1129
Clause 93 calls attention would be grateful to the noble Earl if he could ensure that everything possible was done to make that regard a reality. He would increase the obligations to him that we all feel are placed upon us by the action he has already taken. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to accept this clause and give an assurance that in due course he will use his own powers of direction to help make it work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 93, insert the said new clause—(Lord Hurcomb.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say a word or two in support of this Amendment? I think it is supported by all of us who have been looking at this Bill from the point of view of the protection of amenities. It seems to me to fall within the policy which the noble Earl acceded to when he put down his Amendment requiring that, at an early stage in one of these exercises, everybody concerned with the matter should be brought in instead of dealing with each other at arm's length and possibly getting involved in a dispute which need never have happened had they put their heads together earlier. It is just this sort of policy which the present Amendment has been drafted to carry through. I think there was strong support for the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, speaking from his great knowledge of these matters, that the sooner all those interested in these problems handled them together, the better. In nine cases out of ten they are able to reach some arrangement which satisfies them all, and this means that it goes through without any particular difficulty. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have listened very attentively to what the noble Lords, Lord Hurcomb and Lord Chorley, have said. I cannot myself claim any intimate knowledge of the Nature Conservancy's work. Nevertheless, having read some of their more recent Reports, having listened to the debate which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, initiated in this House in February last year, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, had to say at the Second Reading of this Bill, and to what the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has had to say at later stages of it, I am not unaware of the Con-
1130
servancy's close and legitimate interest in matters of water conservation.
I think there is much to be said for the noble Lord's proposed new clause. Early information will undoubtedly help to avoid possible clashes of interest between the river authorities and the Nature Conservancy. We think this formal provision in the new clause for the supply of information to River Authorities will avoid such clashes of interest and work in fact to the advantage of all concerned.
I am not quite so certain about what the noble Lord said as to the exercise of my right honourable friend's powers of direction under Clause 95 in this respect. That is a matter on which I for one, should like to reflect, and I should not wish in anything I am saying now in any way to commit my right honourable friend, because, on the whole, on matters of this sort, I should have thought they were far better left to the good sense and co-operation between the bodies concerned. But, that said, I am glad to be able to say that I am willing to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
6.14 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved, after Clause 94, to insert the following new clause.
Power to restrict or extend spray irrigation provisions
".—(1) The Ministers may by order direct that references in this Act to spray irrigation, or such of those references as may be specified in the order, shall be construed as not including spray irrigation if carried out by such methods or in such circumstances or for such purposes as may be specified in the order.
(2) Without prejudice to the exercise of the power conferred by the preceding subsection, the Ministers may by order direct that references in this Act to spray irrigation, or such of those references as may be specified in the order, shall be construed as including references to the carrying out, by such methods or in such circumstances or for such purposes as may be specified in the order, of irrigation of any such description, other than spray irrigation, as may be so specified."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down in response to two different points raised during the Committee proceedings on Clause 24. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause

1131
tackles the difficulty of making an exact definition of "spray irrigation" by giving the Ministers of Housing and Agriculture jointly power to make an order declaring that certain activities are not to be regarded as within the definition of spray irrigation contained in Clause 117 (1) of the Bill. The Ministers will have this power at hand should it be necessary to take some steps to make plain, for example, that spraying crops with a pesticide made up with water is not spray irrigation, or that spraying of water from watercress beds over the heads of the growing cress is exempt from licensing. Subsection (2) will enable the two Ministers by order made jointly to bring irrigation by other methods within the term "spray irrigation", and so to make abstractions for such purposes amenable to control under the Bill. This is to implement an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 94 insert the said new clause.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved, after Clause 94, to insert the following new clause
Compensation of officers and servants
".—(1) The Ministers shall by regulations make provision requiring 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 or in respect of persons who are, or but for any national service of theirs would be, the holders of any such situation, place or employment as may be so prescribed who suffer loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, in consequence of—

(a) any of the provisions of section 5 or Part IX of this Act, or

(b) any order under section 10 of this Act,

(c) any order or agreement under section 75 of this Act.

(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 person 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; and for the purposes of the making of any regulations which would apply to loss of employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, in consequence of any such order or agreement as is mentioned in section 75 (8) of this Act, the Ministers' in this section means the Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Transport acting jointly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as I made clear in speaking to Amendment No. 92, this new clause is designed to replace the existing Clause 90. It is in the same terms as Clause 90, except that, first, subsection (1) is extended to require the regulations to provide for compensating any persons who suffer loss of employment or reduction in pay in consequence of any order under Clause 10 or any order or agreement under Clause 75; and, secondly, consequent upon this, subsection (4) is extended to provide that regulations (which otherwise fail to be made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food acting jointly) are to be made jointly by those Ministers and the Minister of Transport, in relation to any employees of a navigation authority, conservancy authority or harbour authority who suffer loss of employment or reduction in pay as the result of an order or agreement under Clause 75.
The extension of subsection (1) is designed to allay the disquiet expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in Committee. Since then NALGO have reverted to the charge and have pointed out, as indeed I did at Committee, that Clause 75 (4) merely enables, and does not require, orders under the clause to include provision for compensation. Subsection (1) of the new clause is designed to put the matter beyond doubt, and I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Burden, just now that it was satisfactory to the Association. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 94, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Rights of entry and inspection]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, Clause 99 (1) (a) is too restrictive and is narrower than the power of entry possessed by river boards under the River Boards Act, 1948. The closing words "in relation to that land" confine the power of entry to the land on which functions of the authority are to be discharged. This would seriously hinder the authorities in the discharge of their functions, particularly those relating to land drainage. The point can be readily illustrated. The river authority must clearly be able to get access to any part of the bank of a river for which it is responsible. To do so its people may need to enter and pass across land intervening between the nearest public highway and the riparian land on which work is to be done or an inspection made. Powers of entry must apply to the intervening land. These facilities will be secured by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
page 82, line 21, leave out from ("functions") to end of line 22 and insert ("of the authority, whether in relation to that land or not").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment is on the same point as the preceding one. Here the effect explained in relation to the Amendment is being put right for officers of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Transport where about the Minister's business, as it was in the previous subsection persons authorised by the river authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 34, leave out from ("performing") to ("any") in line 38 and insert ("whether in relation to that land or not, any functions conferred on any of those Ministers (whether alone or jointly with any other Minister) by").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the preceding Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 44. leave out from first ("any") to ("are") in line 1 on page 83
1134
and insert ("such functions").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
Clause 102 [Power to require information]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment supplies a missing word. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 17, after ("and") insert ("who").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Validity of decisions of Minister and proceedings relating thereto]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment and the next go together, and their effect is to add decision by the Minister on reference under Clause 58 (4) (which was the subject of Amendment No. 59D dealt with this afternoon about charging agreements to be determined by the Minister), to the classes of decisions which may be questioned in the High Court under Clause 105. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 27, leave out ("or section 42 (5)") and insert ("section 42 (5) or section 58 (4)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 33, after ("38") insert ("or section 58 (4)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD moved, after Clause 106, to insert the following new clause:
Procedure relating to byelaws
". The provisions of Schedule 9 to this Act shall have effect with respect to byelaws made by a river authority in the exercise of powers conferred on them by any enactment, including any enactment contained in this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I mentioned this new clause in moving Amendment No. 76. It provides that the procedural provisions of Schedule 9 are to have effect with respect to all the bylaws made by a river authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 106, insert the said new clause.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Calculation of appropriate penny rate product]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is little more than drafting, but needs perhaps a short explanation. The latter part of subsection (7) of Clause 108 is concerned to define the relevant year in relation to the calculation of appropriate penny rate products. As the Bill stands, it does not deal with the case in which the appropriate penny rate product is required to be used in apportioning the local authority's members of a river authority established by order under Clause 10. This Amendment puts that situation right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 45, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 46 and insert ("under Section 3 or of an order under Section 10 of this Act, have been issued by the river authority or river authorities to whom the order relates (excluding, in the case of an order under Section 10 establishing a new river authority, that new authority)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Provisions as to Thames Lee and London areas]:
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved in subsection (4), to leave out "and is so" and to substitute:
" then, in relation to any river authority whose area, by virtue of the order, will consist of or include the whole or any part of the Thames catchment area, the Lee catchment area or the London excluded area—

(a) Sections 6 to 8 (except subsection (6) of Section 6) of this Act shall not apply, but the order shall make such provision as to the constitution of that river authority as appears to the Ministers to correspond as nearly as may be to the provisions of those Sections, and

(b) the order may provide that Section 79 and (so far as applicable for the purposes of that Section) Section 108 of this Act, and Schedule 3 to this Act, and any other provision of this Act which refers to local authorities or any class of local authorities, shall apply subject to such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the order;

and if the order is ".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is self-explanatory, but per-
1136
haps I should say a word or two on it. Under the Bill, alternative approaches to the matter of the Thames, Lee and London areas are provided for. Under Clause 112 (1) an order may be made conferring on the existing bodies—the Thames Conservancy and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board—functions corresponding to the new functions of river authorities. Such an order can, under subsection (2) of the clause, make any necessary adaptations of the Bill. The alternative approach, the second possibility, is an order under Clause 10 altering a river authority area or river authority areas so as to include the whole or part of the Thames, Lee and London Areas, or designating the whole or part of any of those Areas as a new river authority. This alternative approach is referred to in Clause 112, subsections (3) and (4). As Clauses 10 and 112 at present stand, were such an order to be made there would be no power corresponding to that in subsection (2) to make by the Order adaptations of the Bill.
Some adaptations of provisions of the Bill would, however, be necessary in respect of any area falling within the present administrative County of London, or if, parenthetically and provocatively, I prefer to say, when the London Government Bill becomes law, within Great London. Clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill, which relate to the constitution of river authorities, and other provisions of the Bill relating to local authorities would not fit the special circumstances of London government since in the definition of "constituent council" in Clause 6 (7) only councils of counties and county boroughs are referred to, and since "local authority" in the Bill is defined to mean "the council of a county, county borough or county district, or joint planning board". I think I am right in saying that neither the present metropolitan boroughs nor the future London local authorities would fall within those definitions. The Amendment therefore provides that if a Clause 10 Order affecting the Thames, Lee or London Areas is made, Clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill (except Clause 6 (6) which applies the procedural provisions of Schedule 3) are not to apply, and that the Order may adapt Clause 79 affecting precepts, and Clause 108, which deals

1137
with the calculation of penny rate products, and any other provisions of the Bill referring to local authorities. I hope your Lordships understand that explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 39, leave out ("and is so") and insert the said words.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
Lord LINDGREN: My Lords, we accept the Amendment as put before the House by the noble Earl. He referred to the London Government Bill. In accepting the Amendment, and not being provocative, may I assure him that we shall be much more provocative when the London Government Bill comes before this House than we have been on this Bill. If he is fortunate enough to be the Government representative on that Bill, then he will not have such an easy time as he has had on this one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Saving far orders under Water Act 1958]:
Lord HASTINGS: My Lords, this new clause is largely self-explanatory. The purpose of it is; to provide the Postmaster General with the protection which is normally afforded him in cases of this sort. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause:
Provisions as to telegraphic lines
(".—(1) Where for the purpose of carrying out any engineering or building operations a river authority require an alteration to be made in any telegraphic line of the Postmaster General, the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (8) of section 7 of the Telegraph Act 1878 (which provides for the alteration of such telegraphic lines in the case of work proposed to be done in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament) shall apply with respect to that alteration as being an alteration involved by work proposed to be done by undertakers (within the meaning of that Act) in the execution of an undertaking authorised by an Act of Parliament, if apart from this section those provisions would not so apply.
(2) The preceding subsection shall have effect whether the operations in question are to be carried out in the exercise of compulsory powers or not, and, if in the exercise of compulsory powers, whether or not the alteration of the telegraphic line is expressly referred to in any statutory provision conferring those powers.
(3) In this section 'telegraphic line' and 'alteration' have the same meanings as in the Telegraph Act 1878.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, after Clause 114 to insert the following new Clause:
Inland waters owned or managed by British Waterways Board
".—(1) This section applies to all inland waters owned or managed by the British Waterways Board (in this section referred to as 'the Board'), except any such inland waters to which the Minister and the Minister of Transport may by order jointly direct that this section shall not apply.
(2) In respect of abstraction from an inland water to which this section applies—

(a) no person other than the Board shall be entitled to apply for a licence under this Act, other than a licence of right;

(b) in relation to any application by the Board for a licence under this Act, other than a licence of right, section 27 of this Act shall not apply, and section 28 (1) of this Act shall apply as if paragraph (b) of that subsection were omitted;

(c) no person other than the Board shall be entitled to apply for a licence of right, as being entitled to it by virtue of paragraph (b) of section 33 (1) of this Act, if the water abstracted as mentioned in that paragraph was abstracted in pursuance of a contract of sale;

(d) on any application by the Board for a licence of right any water abstracted during the relevant period (as defined by section 34 (1) (b) of this Act) shall be disregarded if it was abstracted in pursuance of a contract of sale which has ceased to be in force before the second appointed day.

(3) Where on the second appointed day the Board are under a contract to sell wafer from an inland water to which this section applies (whether the contract was made by the Board or is a contract made before the vesting date by which the Board became bound on that date), then for the purposes of sections 33 to 35 of this Act—

(a) no person other than the Board shall be taken to be entitled to abstract from that inland water any water to which that contract relates;

(b) any water abstracted from it in pursuance of that contract before the second appointed day shall be treated as having been abstracted by the Board and not by any other person, and

(c) in relation to any licence authorising the abstraction from that inland water of water required for fulfilling that contract, any reference in section 34 of this Act (except in subsection (1) (a) thereof) to the relevant statutory provision shall be construed as a reference to that contract.

(4) Where on or after the second appointed day the Board enter into a contract to sell water from an inland water to which this section applies, and either—

(a) the contract is made before the end of the initial period, or

1139

(b) the Minister of Transport gives his consent under section 63 of the Transport Act 1962 to the sale of the water in pursuance of that contract, and that consent is given in pursuance of an application made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) before the end of the initial period.

section 54 (3) of this Act shall not apply, but the river authority, on the application of the Board, shall grant to the Board a licence under this Act to abstract water, containing such provisions as appear to the river authority to correspond as nearly as may be to the terms of that contract:
Provided that, if the terms of the contract provide for a person other than the Board to abstract the water, then for the purposes of this subsection the contract shall be construed as if those terms had provided for the water to be abstracted by the Board for the purpose of selling it to that other person.
(5) Sections 27 to 29 of this Act shall not have effect with respect to any application 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 an application as they have effect in relation to other applications for licences under this Act.
(6) Where the Board are the holders of a licence under this Act authorising abstraction from an inland water to which this section applies, then, notwithstanding anything in section 56 of this Act, the charges which, apart from this subsection, would be payable in respect of that licence under any charging scheme either—

(a) shall be reduced to such extent, and as so reduced shall be payable subject to such conditions, or

(b) shall not be payable,

as the Board and the river authority may agree, or, in default of such agreement, the Minister and the Minister of Transport may jointly determine
(7) Where a person other than the Board is the holder of a licence under this Act authorising abstraction from an inland water to which this section applies, and any charges in respect of that licence are payable under a charging scheme, the river authority shall pay to the Board such proportion of those charges, subject to such conditions, as the Board and the river authority may agree, or, in default of such agreement, the Minister and the Minister of Transport may jointly determine.
(8) Before making an order under subsection (1) of this section, the Minister and the Minister of Transport shall consult the Board and such one or more river authorities as appear to them to be affected by the order:
Provided that, if the order is made before the second appointed day, any consultation which in accordance with this subsection would have been had with a river authority shall be had instead with the river board (or, if more than one, each river board) whose area by virtue of section 3 of this Act is or will be identical with, or part of, the area of that river authority.
(9) In this section references to the sale by the Board of water from an inland water include references to any arrangements whereby the Board for valuable consideration abstract, or authorise the abstraction of, water from that inland water for use by some other person, whether or not the water is returned after use, and 'the vesting date' has the same meaning as in the Transport Act 1962."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the new clause to which my noble friend Lord St. Oswald referred in his reply to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on a previous Amendment on Tuesday. It is a long clause and not at all an easy one, and in view of its importance I am afraid I shall have to take some time in explaining it to your Lordships. By way of background and introduction, your Lordships will remember that Section 10 (3) (d) of the Transport Act, 1962, equipped the British Waterways Board, established by that Act, with powers to abstract and sell untreated water from
"any inland waterway owned or managed by the Board for any purpose".
Section 62 of the Act established the right of the Board, in the circumstances mentioned in that section, to take water into a canal for the purpose of subsequent sale, as well as for the ordinary purposes of keeping the canal supplied with water, Section 63 gave the Minister of Transport some control over the abstraction of water for sale by the Board, and the control of the Minister is put in as a result of certain criticism while the Bill went through Parliament.
By this Amendment, the new clause has the purpose of making special arrangements for abstractions from inland waters owned or managed by the British Waterways Board, and thereby to replace Section 63 of the Transport Act, 1962, which was really a piece of holding legislation so far as that section applies to England and Wales. The primary object is to apply these special arrangements to the British Waterways Board's mainly artificial canals, leaving the provisions of the Bill to apply unamended to abstractions from all other inland waterways owned or managed by the Board, whether these be natural rivers or artificial cuts made for the improvement of such rivers. The exact definition of such canals is difficult. Therefore it is proposed to proceed by listing the inland waterways owned or managed by the Board to which the special provisions will not apply, and this will be done after consultation with

1141
the interests concerned and jointly by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport.
The main provisions of subsection (2) are that on inland waterways to which the clause applies only the Waterways Board shall be emitted to apply for a licence other than a licence of right; that abstraction of water pursuant to a contract with the Board during what is, under Clause 33 (1) (b) of this Bill, the qualifying period for application for a licence of right shall not entitle the abstracter to apply for such a licence; and, particularly, that, tin relation to the application for a licence of right no account shall be taken of water abstracted during the qualifying period as a result of a contract with the Board which before the second appointed day has ceased to be in force. Subsection (3) secures that where here is on the second appointed day a valid contract for the sale of water, the Board is to be treated as the abstracter for the purpose of the Bill; and for the purpose of settling the terms of the licence of right for that abstraction under Clause 34 the contract is to be regarded as a "relevant statutory provision". There are appropriate transitional provisions and adaptations of the procedure governing applications for licences in subsections (4) and (5).
Subsections (6) and (7) deal with the charges under the Bill. Where the British Waterways Board are the holders of a licence authorising abstraction of water from an inland water to which the clause applies, then, in spite of what is contained in any charging scheme under Clause 56, the charges payable in relation to that licence shall be reduced or remitted altogether, as the Waterways Board and the river authority may agree, or, failing such agreement, as the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport jointly may determine. Further, when any person other than the Board is the licence holder on an inland water to which the clause applies and charges are payable in relation to that licence under a charging scheme, the river authority are to pay to the Board a proportion of those charges agreed or determined as in the other case just mentioned. This is the mechanism which ensures, first, that abstracters from these canals will not be subjected to a double charge—one by the Waterways Board
1142
and one by the river authority—and, second, that the financial position of the Waterways Board is not radically undermined. These are points which were raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, during the Committee stage.
The people I refer to now as having a licence under a charging scheme and drawing water from canals are those who would be doing it pursuant to a contract with the British Waterways Board, but there are other abstractions lawfully made from such inland waters; for example, by persons having direct statutory authority by virtue of the provisions in canal legislation, or other legislation, or by persons exercising some non-statutory right without payment to the Board. These persons, in common with abstracters from other inland waters, will become subject to the normal provisions of the Bill as to licences of right and as to charges payable to the river authority. In other words, they will get their licences from the river authority, and not from the Waterways Board, and they will pay their charges to the river authority, some of which will be passed on to the British Waterways Board.
So much for the special arrangements of the new clause. At the same time I want to present a general point to your Lordships. The Government think it necessary to make it quite clear at the present stage that any arrangements laid down in this Bill to govern abstractions from canals or other navigable waterways are quite without prejudice to any general legislation that may be later thought necessary to deal directly with the general problems of inland waterways. It will be remembered that the Report of the Bowes Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways, published in 1958, suggested that steps should be taken to deal with those cases where obligations to provide free or unduly cheap supplies of water from canals are burdensome to the canal owners.
If conservation is to be effective the Government believe that canals, as well as natural rivers, must be subject to some sort of control. It follows from this that, for the purposes of the present Bill, the various arrangements governing abstractions, including the grant of protected

1143
rights under Clause 26, make no distinction between the two categories. But, as was stated in Appendix II to the Proud-man Report, there are at present important differences between the nature of rights in water in artificial streams and in natural streams. The most important of these differences is that there appear to be no natural (riparian) rights in the flow of water in an artificial stream as there are in a natural stream. Various rights may have been acquired by Statute, by ownership of land or by grant or prescription. If these now represent obligations which are out of date and burdensome upon the owner of the artificial stream or navigation, it seems to be fair that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider in the context of future general waterways legislation whether it is right to allow them to continue. This Bill would not be the correct context in which to do so. Therefore, while it is proper for it to deal with artificial streams as well as with natural ones, it should not be assumed that any protected rights to take water from such artificial streams conferred only for the purposes of this Bill will necessarily continue indefinitely.
I should like to apologise for the length of this explanation, but I thought it was necessary in view of the complexity and importance of this clause. It safeguards the position of the British Waterways Board in respect of their artificial canals, and they will be the people to deal direct with the river authority in respect of abstraction in the main, and they will be able to sell the water as at present. They have agreed to give up those rights in respect of the natural streams and artificial cuts improving natural streams. That, very briefly, is the situation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 114 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords I am glad that the noble Lord did not preface his remarks by saying that this Amendment is self-explanatory, because we needed all he had to give us in the way of explanation; and, even now, I cannot claim to understand the new clause, I welcome, however, his assurance that it safeguards the rights about which we were inquiring. I think his explanation
1144
of the clause, and still more the subsequent explanation of policy that he gave us, need very careful looking at afterwards on paper.
I am glad to hear that the Government definitely contemplate further legislation to deal with canals and waterways, and I should like to ask only one question. He has dealt with waterways owned or managed by the British Waterways Board. What about the independent waterways which still need their supply of water and still need to be able to obtain revenue by selling it? Could we hear whether they are covered by this same clause?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, since I raised this point on Committee, I also would express gratitude to my noble friend for introducing this clause and explaining it to your Lordships. I thought I had found my way through it before, and I still think I have. Nevertheless, an explanation was, I am sure, necessary, because, to be perfectly frank, I have a feeling that this clause smacks in places of double-think. Nevertheless, I am certain it does the job my noble friend set out to do and it cures a very bad gap which was in the Bill. I am glad to see its insertion this afternoon.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I do not want to detract from the note of appreciation that has been sounded already. In fact, seeing that this concerns the British Waterways Board I am delighted that this clause has been agreed to by the Government, and there is no envy in my heart. But I would call attention to a little inconsistency on the part of the Government—my noble friend behind me says, "Only a little?". At earlier stages I have been asking, and the Government have refused the request, that where an abstracter had already paid the cost of his water works there should be no charge from the river board. I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, to a subsection which he mentioned in his introductory speech, subsection (6) which reads:
"Where the Board are the holders of a licence under this Act authorising abstraction from an inland water to which this section applies…the charges…

(a) shall be reduced to such extent, and as so reduced shall be payable subject to such conditions, or

(b) shall not be payable."

1145
That is all I was asking for earlier in regard to the statutory water undertaker who was carrying out existing abstractions and who had in fact paid for the works necessary in relation to those abstractions. I do not object at all that the Government have conceded this to the British Waterworks Board, who constructed, or whose predecessors constructed, the works. But it is a little inconsistent of the Government to accede to one request and refuse another.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am very glad for the general welcome given to this clause, and rather grateful for the lack of piercing questions which might have been thrown at me, because it is not long since I had to absorb the details of this new clause. I would say, in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, in respect of private canals, that I understand that abstractions from those are exempt under Clause 24 (4) and (6), and the position with regard to the charges will depend upon the canal statutes authority. I do not think I have to say anything in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, except to examine again some of the "doublethink", as I believe he put it, which there may be in the clause.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, whom I am almost induced to refer to as "my noble friend" by now, I think he should not worry unduly—he said he was not envious—that the British Waterways Board are getting preferred treatment in comparison to the statutory water undertakers; because as we know very well, under the Bill as it is the statutory water undertakers can, as a result of impounding works, get a much reduced charge, as laid down in subsection (6) (a). So far as I know, the words "shall not be payable"—which are qualified by the necessity for arrangements and agreements between water boards and the Ministers and the river authorities—are not so very different from the words contained in the Bill which allow for complete exemption of charges. I think that is the answer I would give to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Regulations and orders]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment follows from a Government Amendment introducing a new clause
1146
after Clause 94, giving power to restrict or extend by ministerial order the spray irrigation provisions in the Bill. The Amendment makes such orders subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 32, after ("55") insert ("under section Power to restrict or extend spray irrigation provisions)"). —(Lard St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE moved EARL JELLICOE moved, at end of subsection 6 (b), to insert:
"or,
(c) an order under the last preceding section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is, in the main, a drafting Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is to bring an order under Clause 115 into the list of those subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. But provision has been made already by paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of Clause 116 for certain orders under Clause 115 to be subject to the more vigorous procedure requiring them to be approved by Resolution of each House before coming into effect. The drafting Amendment at page 95, line 36, so alters the proviso to Clause 116 (6) as to preserve this position.
The matter of procedure in relation to orders under Clause 115 was discussed during our Committee stage upon an Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and at that stage, and in further correspondence with my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, we have sought to show that the main operation of adjusting compensation water provisions, to which the force of Lord Colville of Culross's Amendment was directed, will be undertaken under other provisions of the Bill which bring in rights of objection and representation. What is done by order under Clause 115 will be in the nature of tidying up. Nevertheless, it is right, in our view, that some check should be put upon the exercise of a power to alter things previously settled by Parliament; and the Amendment provides for this in making orders under Clause 115 subject to annulment by Resolution of either House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 33, at end insert—
(" or, (c) an order under the last preceding section").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am pleased that this particular Amendment has been put in as a "long stop"; I do not think it is more than that, or that it is intended to be more than that. I hope that the fact that my noble friend has conceded under Clause 115 this much of the point I perhaps wrongly tried to make in Committee will not detract from the assurance that they will have another look at the position under Clause 46, because I believe that deals really with the time to get this matter right, although it may be of value to have a second "go" in Parliament on occasions.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should be very glad to have a further look at this point. I am not particularly optimistic that we shall come to a different conclusion, but we will have another look at it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.50 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 36, leave out from ("to") to end of line 38 and insert ("any order which, by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, is required to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117 [Interpretation]:
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this Amendment equips the Bill with a definition of "agriculture", and follows up the undertaking which I gave to my noble friend Lord Waldegrave, in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 10, at end insert—
("'agriculture' includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and 'agricultural' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord St. Oswald.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I do not think it does. It was
1148
I who suggested that a definition of "agriculture" should be included. What my noble friend Lord Waldegrave said was that it should include woodlands, And that is the one thing it does not do. Except and in so far as there would be the inclusion of nurseries and sapling trees, and suchlike, I do not see that woodlands themselves are included, unless they are ancillary to "farming of land for other agricultural purposes". My noble friend is not here to carry on with what he said in Committee. I wonder whether my noble friend would explain the point.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I will look into this matter. I remember that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross joined my noble friend Lord Waldegrave in this request. The definition which is now provided by the Government Amendment is the same as that used in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and it has been accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is of relevance in Clauses 6 and 19, and in Clauses 24 and 58. I am not absolutely certain whether it does include woodlands, but I believe that my noble friend is right in saying that it excludes woodlands.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this Amendment is simply a definition of "engineering or building operations", a term which was introduced into Clauses 63 and 65 by earlier Amendments this afternoon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96. line 14, at end insert—
("'engineering or building operations' (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) includes the construction, alteration, improvement, or maintenance of any reservoir, watercourse, dam, weir, well, borehole or other works, the closure or removal of any reservoir, watercourse, dam, weir, well, borehole or other works, the construction, alteration, improvement, maintenance or demolition of any building or structure, and the installation, modification or removal of any machinery or apparatus.").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this is the definition of a "joint planning board". The effect is that it means a joint planning board established by the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the areas of two or more county or county borough councils or for any parts of those

1149
areas. It includes also Joint Planning Boards for National Parks. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 32, at end insert—
("joint planning board' has the same meanoing as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1962")—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the Bill requires a definition of "land drainage", particularly as certain transfers of water made in the course of, or resulting from, "land drainage operations" are exempted from the restriction imposed by Clause 23. That definition is hereby provided. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 33, at end insert—
("'land drainage' includes the protection of land against erosion or encroachment by water, whether from inland waters or from the sea, and also includes warping and irrigation other than spray irrigation.")—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet the point which we discussed at some length on Clause 12, when we were discussing an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Conesford. I argued last Tuesday that this was a superior Amendment to my noble friend's Amendment. I do not propose to repeat my arguments now. Without going into further detail, I would claim that the broad effect of the Amendment is to bring the whole question of the use of treated salt water fully within the scope of the river authorities and of the Water Resources Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 7, at end insert—
("(4) Any reference in this Act to action for the purpose of augmenting water resources in an area shall (without prejudice to the generality thereof) be construed as including action for the purpose of treating salt water (whether taken from the sea or elsewhere) by any process for removing salt or other impurities before discharging it into a source of supply in that area").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS:My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford has specially asked me to thank my noble friend Lord Jellicoe
1150
for this Amendment, which he says he agrees with entirely and thinks to be very good indeed. I feel that he would also like me to commend to your Lordships the absence of the word "desalination" in favour of rather happier Anglo-Saxon.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Amendments and repeals]:
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is solely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The enactments specified in Parts I to III of Schedule 10 to this Act shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in those Parts of that Schedule, being minor amendments or amendments consequential on the preceding provisions of this Act;
Provided that this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of Part IV of that Schedule, and to the following provisions of this section")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 12, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this Amendment contains a saving for the Thames catchment area, the Lee catchment area and the London excluded area in respect of the general amendment and repeal of enactments effected by Clause 118 and Schedules 10 and 11. The saving is necessary since the Thames, Lee and London areas are left outside the river authority areas established by the Bill, and until something is done about this, under Clause 10 or under Clause 112, they must remain unaffected by the amendments and repeals of enactments for which the Bill provides. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 18, at end insert—
("(5) The amendment or repeal of any enactment by virtue of this section shall not affect the operation of that enactment in relation to the Thames catchment area, the Lee

1151
catchment area or the London excluded area (as defined by section 112 (5) of this Act):
Provided that—

(a) this subsection shall have effect without prejudice to the exercise, in relation to any such amendment or repeal, of the power conferred by section 112 (2) of this Act;

(b) if an order under section 10 of this Act is made as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 112 (3) of this Act, any such amendment or repeal shall be included among the provisions which may be applied by the order as mentioned in section 112 (4) (b) of this Act")—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Short title and extent]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, these two Amendments really go together. The first has the effect of securing that paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 (which adds the Water Resources Board to the list of bodies whose members may not sit in the House of Commons) applies in Scotland as well as England and Wales. The other Amendment ensures that the same paragraph applies to Northern Ireland. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 22, after ("thereof") insert ("and paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 thereto").(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I think that after this Amendment we shall not be continuing with the Report stage this evening. I want, however, to make a small correction to the answer that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, when referring him to the reference with regard to private canals. I have had time to look it up since, and it is Clause 24 (4) (b) and not (4) and (6) as I said. I formally beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 29, after ("Act") insert ("except paragraph 4 of Schedule 5)").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we have now come up against the Schedules to the Bill, and I think we have therefore reached the point at which we were aiming for this evening. In view of that, I beg to move that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration of the Bill be adjourned—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to