HL Deb 11 June 1964 vol 258 cc1001-35

4.0 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigion.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

A second print of the Marshalled List was made for the purpose of correcting a mistake in the first: and in case all noble Lords have not got the second edition, may I say that there is only one alteration. That is that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, should appear on page 2 as the mover of Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. With that exception there is no difference between the two prints. I hope it will be convenient for me to say this straight away.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Licences

3.—

(4) It shall be the duty of a river purification board to maintain at their office a register containing particulars of any application made or licence granted for the purposes of this Act to be open to public inspection free of charge at all reasonable hours; and the particulars of any such application shall be entered in that register within seven days of its receipt.

(6) Not later than the 31st day of October in the year in which such an application is made, the river purification board, after consideration of the application and any representations against it duly made— (a) may grant a licence either unconditionally or containing such conditions as they may reasonably impose, which, without prejudice to that generality, may include conditions as to the means of abstraction of water, the amount of water to be abstracted during any period, and the periods during which water may be abstracted, or

(7) Where a river purification board fails to intimate its decision on an application by the date specified in the last foregoing subsection, that application shall be deemed to have been granted unconditionally, and the board shall issue a licence accordingly.

(8) Where on an application under this section the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the river purification board, he may, within 28 days of that decision by notice in writing, appeal to the Secretary of State; and the applicant shall, within that time, serve a copy of that notice on the river purification board.

LORD CRAIGTON

In its definition of persons who are entitled to abstract water, the English Act of 1963 refers to occupiers of land "contiguous to" a stream. Although I am advised that "abutting on", the words now in the Bill, have the same meaning, it seemed sensible not to make room for doubt in future by using different words when the intention is the same. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, leave out ("abutting on") and insert ("contiguous to").—(Lord Craigton.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

This Amendment and the words it seeks to replace may seem very innocent, but in fact they raise a matter of considerable principle. That is: is it to be completely impossible for an occupier whose land comes very close to a stream but is not actually abutting on or adjacent to it to have any chance of getting water from that stream? In order that I may not be accused of putting up theoretical cock-shies I am going to give an example which, although it is certainly unusual, may not be unique.

A number of years ago a property on the banks of the River Tay was broken up and its various farms were bought by the occupiers. At the same time the valuable salmon fisheries were sold separately. As noble Lords know, salmon fisheries in Scotland are quite different from those in England; they are regalia minora and can be sold without reference to the question of the ownership of the banks. In this particular case an unusual procedure was followed, inasmuch as the purchaser of the fisheries also bought a very narrow strip of land several miles long but varying from five to 25 yards in width and consisting only of scrubby trees. The result is—and this is where I should like the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to say whether it is the case—that the owner-occupiers of all the farms behind that stream could never be given permission to abstract water from the river Tay, even if they had the permission of the owners of the fishing, because of this small strip of land, which is quite valueless except for the purpose of obtaining access to the fisheries.

If that is the case, and if it is to be impossible for anyone to be allowed to withdraw water from the stream if his land does not actually abut on to it, then I would suggest that some provision should be made for giving to people within a short distance of the stream but whose land does not actually touch it, licences, at the discretion of the river Authorities, to draw water. In this particular case it is the River Tay, and the volume of water flowing down this river is, I believe, greater than that of any river in Great Britain. At this point hundreds of thousands of gallons of water a day could easily be abstracted without in any way affecting the flow of the river.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am very conscious of the difficulty that my noble friend Lord Mansfield has mentioned. What we have to do is to try to identify the rights of a riparian proprietor. I am told that "abutting on" and "contiguous to" have the same meaning. My own feeling is that the board, in exercising common sense, would feel it had a little more latitude with the words "contiguous to" than with the words "abutting on". Of course, anybody with land so near a river could buy a very small piece of the land, just sufficient to carry a pipe into the river, and they would clearly be both "contiguous to" and "abutting on" the river. But this is a problem that must arise in England as well as in Scotland. For that reason I feel strongly that it would be much safer to use the words in the 1963 English Act rather than to pick our own words, which, if anything—in my personal view but not in the view of the dictionary—are a little less restrictive than "abutting on".

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, but I still feel that in cases such as I have mentioned it would be better if some statutory provision were made to make it possible, at the discretion of the board, for a person to take water, rather than to rely upon possibly ambiguous constructions of the words "contiguous to", which might not be supported in the courts if the matter came there.

LORD CRAIGTON

The purpose of the Committee stage is to consider this kind of point. I will give the noble Earl an undertaking that we will look at what he has said and see whether we can do anything; but this matter has been very carefully considered already.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved in subsection (3), after "irrigation" to insert: including the nature of the crops to be irrigated, estimates as to the cost of installing and operating the irrigation equipment and specifications thereof".

The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. It seeks merely to introduce these additional words in order to amplify the information which applicants must include when they apply to the board for licences. This extra information, which relates to the nature of the crops to be irrigated and, particularly, to the estimate as to the cost of installations, would be especially useful to the purification boards and would help them make their decisions when they came to try to apportion out the licences. As I hope to show in a later Amendment, it is particularly important in those cases where the demand for water from rivers exceeds the supply available. I think it is a very simple Amendment. It is just to include these extra words. I beg to move.

Amendment moved: Page 2, line 38, after ("irrigation") insert said words.—(The Earl of Haddington.)

LORD FORBES

I cannot agree with the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. I cannot see that it is going to help matters at all. First of all, it is highly improbable that farmers will want to irrigate anything other than crops; if they are going to irrigate thistles I do not suppose they will say so. Secondly, there is the question of operating costs. You cannot tell what the operating costs are going to be until you know what the rainfall is going to be; and no farmer at the beginning of the season can know that. If he did, then farming would be very easy. I can see no purpose in this Amendment so I am afraid I cannot support it.

LORD CRAIGTON

The noble Earl who moved this Amendment desires to mention specifically some of the detailed information that the board will require; but the Bill permits the board to obtain information under certain broad headings and—and this is what is really important— …other matters relevant to consideration of the application, as that board may require". So, to descend from the general to the particular as this Amendment seeks to do would, by specifically mentioning certain points, give quite unnecessary direction-pointers to the board, who now can, if they wish—and, after all, they know best—ask for all the information called for by this Amendment and anything else that they think proper. As with so many facets of this Bill, it is best to give the boards general powers and leave it to them to carry out the well-defined purposes of the Bill. So I must advise your Lordships to resist this Amendment—I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it—on the ground that the boards, if they think fit, can call for this information.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I never had any wish to press this Amendment. I only thought that these words would be useful for providing the boards with information, and if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill thinks they are unnecessary, I have no wish to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRAIGTON

As the Bill now stands, anyone interested in applications for licences, perhaps with a view to objection, can find out about them only by going to see them at the board's office. It seems to us wise and helpful to require the board, as does this Amendment, also to publish brief particulars of the application in a local paper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 41, after ("purification board") insert— (" (a) in each year, as soon as may be after the date mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, to publish in a local newspaper circulating in each area to which a control order relates, a notice stating briefly the nature of any applications made to them for licences in that area and where and when particulars of those applications may be inspected; and (b)").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

With your Lordships' approval, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. The boards are required to keep a register of licences applied for and of licences granted. Under the Bill, applications have to be entered into the register within seven days. Under these Amendments, the seven days' requirement would apply also to the recording of licences granted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 2, at end insert ("or licence").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, leave out ("its receipt") and insert ("the receipt of the application, or as the case may be, the granting of the licence").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.13 p.m.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

moved, at the beginning of subsection (6) to insert: Subject to the provisions of the next following section of this Act". The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' approval, I will take this Amendment with No. 13, which is a new clause to follow Clause 3. It deals with the question of issuing licences where the demand for water in any particular river exceeds the supply available, which in many small rivers may often be the case. While we may think it is perfectly feasible that every riparian owner or occupier, whose farms abuts on to the river, should be entitled to obtain a licence, we must remember that it is most important, in the interests of agriculture generally, that the water available in any river is used to the best advantage. Obviously, if licences are issued to too many farmers, they may each receive so little water that proper irrigation may never be done on any of the farms concerned. This subdivision of supply would result only in the waste of valuable national resources.

Who is to judge which of the schemes put forward are the best, and what type of licences should be granted for them? Evidently, by the Bill, this is to be the duty of the purification boards. But, of course, this will become mainly a technical farming matter, concerned with the growing of crops. Therefore, there should be an increased agricultural representation on the boards. On the Second Reading of this Bill, my noble friend Lord Craigton gave an undertaking that this increased agricultural representation on the boards will be provided for by Order made under the 1951 Act—I hope that I am correct in saying that. In giving licences in the cases where the demand is likely to exceed the supply, the boards will have to pay particular attention to the three points in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of my proposed new clause, and that they may be assured of doing this is precisely the purpose of the Amendment, which I think requires no more words from me. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, at beginning insert the said words.—(The Earl of Haddington.)

LORD CRAIGTON

As my noble friend has said, what he asks the boards to do by his Amendments is very important, but this is, as a generality, what one would expect them to do in any case. Indeed, if they failed to do these things, they would be neglecting their duties under Section 17(1) of the 1951 Act, which your Lordships will notice is referred to in Clause 1 of this Bill. It would not be wise or proper to spell out just some of their duties in promoting the cleanliness of rivers in this Bill and in this way.

On the question of the available water being put to the most beneficial use, clearly the board would not cancel a licence already given (because they want to make renewals as automatic as possible) simply on the ground that to grant a new application might be more beneficial to agriculture than an existing licence. But in his administrative guidance to the board, my right honourable friend would consider pointing out that, if two or more new licences were under consideration for the same area and could not all be granted, weight should be given, as one of the factors in the decision, to the respective value to agriculture generally of the applications under review. I hope that, with this assurance, and with the assurance that these powers are already in the 1951 Act, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the advice given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, because I doubt very much whether the wording of his proposed new clause would, in fact, serve the purpose he has in mind. In the new clause, he makes provision for the circumstance where the amount of water to be abstracted under the licences for which application has been made exceeds the amount of water available ". I take the meaning of that to be "exceeding the amount of water available for extraction for spraying irrigation", but in the ordinary use of language, it could be taken to mean where the number of applications made exceeded the amount of water in the river, and in that event it would be only if people took more water away than was there that this clause would operate. I think that the board would wish to do exactly what the noble Lord suggests, if there was an intention of drawing more water than could be spared from the river. So I think that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is the better way of dealing with this. I intend to say more on this subject in due course, because there are one or two points which will fall to be dealt with in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has suggested.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I have listened to my noble friend's reply, and I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said. My noble friend says that, supposing the river is low and somebody who had been getting a licence for years is superseded, so to speak, by somebody having greater need for a licence—somebody, perhaps, who is growing more crops, and therefore wants more water than his neighbour on the bank who is already getting it—who is to judge? The board must judge who is to get the licence. What is the harm in writing this into the Bill? This particularly applies to paragraph (c) of my new clause, which says that the board shall have regard to the most beneficial apportionment thereof in the public interest between the applicants". There might well be a frightful controversy between two farmers, one saying: "I deserve more water than you do. I grow more crops; I have more grass silage to get ready for my cattle", and so on. Why not put the words into the Bill? If my noble friend says it is quite impossible to do so, I will withdraw the Amendment, but I really cannot see the point of not doing so.

LORD CRAIGTON

Nothing is impossible to Parliament, but it is unwise, in a Bill of this nature, to include specific items which, by inference, exclude other things. The prime duty of the board is to secure the most beneficial apportionment of the river, from the point of view of the interests concerned, and the conservation of the water. If they do not do this, they are not fulfilling their function. The assurance I gave was given so that the board should have some guidance from my right honourable friend as to what would be the position of the existing installer and the other installers.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

If the boards carry out their duties as my noble friend says they will, everything will be all right. I only hope that they will. I have no wish to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRAIGTON

With you Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. Their effect is to increase from a fortnight to a month the time given to the Board to determine applications and intimate their decisions. This change meets the views of the River Purification Boards Association. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("river purification board") in line 9 and insert ("A").—(Lord Craigton.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 10, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.23 p.m.

LORD BURTON

moved, after subsection (6), to insert: (7) Where an application relates to abstraction from a stream in respect of which a minimum acceptable level has been determined under this Act, the river purification board, in dealing with the application, shall (without predjudice to the preceding provisions) have regard to the need to secure that the level at any control point will not be reduced below the minimum acceptable level at that point, or (if it is already below that minimum acceptable level) will not be further reduced below that minimum acceptable level. The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 9, I would ask that I be allowed to speak to Amendment No. 21 also, as one Amendment is dependent upon the other. First. I must declare an interest in the Bill. I am a member of a purification board, a member of a fishery board, and have substantial fishery interests. I am also a member of a county council, a Scottish farmer and, consequently, a member of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. I am a Scottish landowner and, as such, on the executive committee of the Landowners' Federation. However, though sitting on both sides of the fence, and perhaps on top of it, I am not a spray irrigator; nor do I see much likelihood of becoming one, so long as there is no marked change in our climate. Thus, there is no interest involved which is at variance with what I am sure is the desire of everyone here to-day; that is, to get the best possible solution to the problem of keeping the Scottish rivers and streams clear and flowing, while using our natural resources to the best possible advantage with the minimum possible work and expense to the various individuals and bodies concerned. Basically, I am sure we all welcome this Bill, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Craigton for the considerable work he has put into this Bill, and for the time he has taken in considering any point, however small, raised by interested parties.

If I may first don the cap of a member of a purification board, my first concern is that such members may have considerably increased demands upon their valuable time. The number of suitable persons in Scotland who are available and prepared to do this voluntary work is very limited, and such people probably have many other calls upon them. As the Bill stands, detailed study will have to be given each year to all applications for licences. In this respect I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Craigton, because his last Amendment has eased the burden slightly by removing the very tight time schedule to which boards would have had to operate. Even so, much work and detailed study will still have to be done within a short time each year to permit the applicants to have a decision within a reasonable time. Finally, the purification boards may well have to make tricky, and possibly invidious, decisions each and every year. As we have heard to-day, already the purification boards will have many weighty decisions to make. Fortunately for us, the main problem of the purification board of which I am a member is to control what is added to the rivers, in particular from the distilleries, and this is a big enough problem and time consumer. I only hope that we shall not also have to compete with the problems of extraction for the production of another type of sustenance.

Now to change my cap to that of a fishery board member, paragraph 3(1)(b) of the Schedule ensures that fishery boards will be notified of the establishment, or intended establishment, of a control order. This, however, is not of so much interest to the fishery board as the question of what is going to happen each year once licences have been issued. It is laid down that applications for licences shall be duly advertised, and it has been suggested that this will occur only once a year. But in Clause 4 provision is made, and rightly made, for the applications. It could well be this last application which will break the camel's back and allow too much water to be extracted for the good of the fisheries. With due respect, my experience of offices of clerks to district fishery boards is that half the room is taken up with tin deed boxes, a considerable proportion of the remainder is strewn with paper, some of which is tied up with red tape, and there is very little outward appearance that inspires confidence in efficiency. Indeed, in one such office, upon the mantlepiece stands a 1922 (or is it a 1920?) Who's Who. As a result, the fishery interests fear that detrimental licences may be issued without their clerk having woken up to the fact in time.

If I may now move to the views of a county councillor, there is a fear of increasing costs to the ratepayer. I do not think I need go very closely into this point and, it may be that the costs of licences will cover the cost of operating the Bill. But your Lordships will recollect that my noble friend Lord Haddington told us on the Second Reading of this Bill that on the River Tyne, in East Lothian, there is a possible total of 20 licences, or a possible income of £100; and this is so far the most troubled area. My noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell told your Lordships that the notification of interested parties in one county alone might involve 5,000 letters, though I am pleased to note a later Amendment which may slightly ease this situation; and there is also the possible cost of appeals and compensation. The costs may therefore well exceed £100. So there is a justifiable concern that this Bill may put an additional burden on the rates. To avoid undue complications for local authorities, however, I hope that the Secretary of State will not delay in setting up purification boards in areas where spray irrigation is taking place and purification boards do not at present exist, for this could cause considerable complications to the local authorities and, in time, to the purification boards. Such a situation, I believe already exists in Angus.

Perhaps I may now take on two caps at once; for, as so often happens, the interests of the farmer and the landowner go hand in hand. There are fears that farmers who have invested substantial sums of money—and, indeed, if they have done so they are likely to have received water supply grants from the Government—may find that a year later they are forbidden to use their equipment, or at least be unable to use it to capacity. There is a certain knowledge that more forms will have to be completed by farmers and also more regulations, which already abound to such an extent that it is hard to keep within the law all the time without unwittingly digressing.

Finally (if I may try to put all those thoughts under ore hat, or all the hats at once), I hope that my Amendments provide a solution to many of the problems and worries that I have just mentioned. The intention of the Amendments is to try to settle as soon as pos, Bible most of the differences that may arise—in fact, to settle them on the setting up of the control order, and not piecemeal, year by year, on the granting of licences. Something of this nature has been attempted in England by the Water Resources Act, 1963, which sets up a lengthy complicated procedure in attempting to establish the "minimum acceptable flow". This, I gather, is proving very difficult in practice and may take many years to put into operation. My solution is, I hope, a simpler solution to a less complicated problem. I feel that, with the good will of all parties, or the arbitration of the Secretary of State and the local knowledge which already exists, it should be possible to establish minimum desirable or acceptable levels, as opposed to flows at various points upon the rivers or streams, and these levels can be quite easily delineated by calibrated posts in the various waters. If the minimum levels can be established, then the task of the purification boards will be enormously eased; the fishery interests and those interested in pollution will not have to worry, once the level has been established, and irrigators, or prospective irrigators, will know exactly where they stand. Accordingly, I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burton.)

4.32 p.m.

LORD CRAIGTON

I must congratulate my noble friend on an excellent maiden speech. He brings a great experience to our deliberations. I cannot say that in this House we are lacking in experience, because we have so many people here who talk with great experience. But he brings a new light to our deliberations, and I know that all noble Lords will join with me in hoping that we shall hear him taking part very often in the future in our Scottish debates.

The noble Lord has raised a number of points, and I will look most carefully at those he has raised which are perhaps wider than the Amendment he has so ably moved. On one point he is afraid that the fishery boards may not know of the applications. Of course, the fishery boards have representatives on the river purification board, either directly or through a member representing more than one fishery board, and, surely, the secretary of the fishery board, even though he is elderly, and not too efficient, can keep an eye—at least we can expect him to do so—on the local paper. But I appreciate the noble Lord's concern on this important point of minimum flow or minimum level. I am not able to say with any authority whether what he has in mind would be more easily achieved by referring to a "minimum acceptable level" rather than to the accepted term of "minimum acceptable flow." Certainly the Water Resources Act, 1963 uses the word "flow". The relevant provisions of the 1963 Act, on this question alone, take up eight pages compared with the five pages for this whole Bill.

I am advised that in England there is still much work to be done on this subject, and that advice is being given by a sub-committee of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, although the English boards have already been working on this matter for some time. I am afraid, therefore, that because the Scottish boards are not all yet in a position to comply, and because the provisions which we might find necessary in the end may be so complex, I must ask the noble Lord—though I wish I could accept an Amendment moved in a maiden speech—whether he will consider withdrawing his Amendment if I give him the following assurance. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Bill as it now stands my right honourable friend has power to require a board to give all such other relevant information as the Secretary of State may … require. Between now and the Report stage we will look carefully at the whole question and try to find words to add to the Schedule which will meet the noble Lord's point.

LORD BURTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for his kind remarks. I would say that I specifically used the word "levels" rather than "flows", because with "flows" we have all the complications which are happening in England, where the volume of the water has to be measured, with the speed of the water and numerous other things, whereas the word "level" would give us all we require in this case, and all we need is a calibrated post in the river. However, in view of the undertaking given by my noble friend, I willingly withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment has already been discussed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("board") to ("application") in line 25, and insert ("fail to inform an applicant of their decision on his application by the 15th day of November in the year in which the application is made, the").—(Lord Craigton.)

LORD HUGHES

This is a minor point. I gather, after inquiries that I made before we started this Sitting, that it is accepted that it is equally correct to refer to a board or a Government—not a Government; there is a particular rule there; but a collective noun like "the board"—in the plural or in the singular. I notice that in this Amendment the Government have taken the opportunity of substituting for, "fails to inform an applicant of its decision", the words, "fail to inform an applicant of their decision". As they have generally referred to the board as "they", I take it that this is in the interests of consistency.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He mentioned this point to me before the Sitting. He is perfectly right. Either, I understand, is correct; a board can be either "it" or "they". Of the two, the plural is more correct, and in any Bill using the word "they" it should be consistent throughout. If I may trespass on your Lordships' generosity, there is one case in Clause 7 where we have put "it" instead of "they", and we shall see that it is corrected at the next stage.

LORD LATHAM

Higher education.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

This is a minor Amendment to make it quite clear that the 28 days' period during which an aggrieved applicant may appeal shall not start until the date on which he receives the decision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, leave out from ("days of") to ("to the") in line 31, and insert ("his receipt of that decision appeal by notice in writing").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.37 p.m.

LORD LINDGREN

moved to leave out subsection (14). The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, for putting down this Amendment so late, but I took all the steps I could to let him know the general line I was going to take on the Amendment; therefore I hope he has not been put to too much inconvenience and that he will be able to give a reasoned reply to what looks like a simple Amendment. Subsection (14) of Clause 3 will confer a valuable right upon a spray irrigator with a licence from the river purification board. The spray irrigator holding the licence will receive an immediate and complete immunity from any action at law provided he complies with the terms of his licence. He will be able to take his licensed quantity, regardless of any damage to the river and regardless of any damage to the rights of all other riparian owners and abstractors.

The Common Law right of a riparian owner has been stated clearly many times, and if one goes right back perhaps the clearest statement so far as Scotland is concerned is that in the case of John Young and Company v. Bankier Distillery Company. So we have the established right of the riparian owner. But subsection (14) of Clause 3 will abolish the rights of the riparian owners to take action against the spray irrigator, without substituting any other right of action and without any compensation whatever. At the same time, the rights of spray irrigators to take action against other riparian owners will be preserved. Thus the spray irrigator will be placed in the enviable position that he will be able to sue other riparian owners but cannot himself be sued.

Practically, there are a large number of interests who will be affected. There is the statutory water undertaker who abstracts water for public supplies under statutory powers and it may find its rights to abstract affected if large quantities of water are abstracted for spray irrigation; and statutory water undertakers will be without any remedy against the spray irrigators. Industries such as paper mills abstract water sometimes under statutory powers and sometimes as a prescriptive right. There is the Common Law right of the farmer to extract water for his cattle and for household purposes. There are the fishing rights, which will be left without redress; and there are the public health and the amenity interests, who, again, will be without remedy.

This question of the licensing of abstractions and the abrogation of Common Law rights was debated very fully when the Water Resources Bill was before the House. The Water Resources Act, 1963, applies to England and Wales and provides a comprehensive system for the control of all abstraction, including public water supply, industry, agriculture and spray irrigation. Section 31(1) of the 1963 Act contains words similar to those in Clause 3(14) of the Bill now before us, but Section 56(5) of the Act of 1963 provides that an abstractor with a licence of right (other than a statutory abstractor) is not to have the benefit of this immunity from Common Law action until he begins to pay for his abstraction under a charging scheme prepared by the river authority under the Act.

Moreover, the Act of 1963 contains many safeguards for abstractors other than spray irrigators. In issuing new licences the river authority is bound to take into account the rights of all other abstractors, and this is provided for in Section 29 of the Act of 1963. Further, all abstractors must be licensed, and the licences confer upon the abstractors protected rights, which, again, is provided in Section 26 of the 1963 Act. Under Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963 the river authority must not grant a licence which derogates from protective rights. If the river authority contravenes this subsection, then the abstractor with a protected right may take action against the river authority for breach of statutory duty.

Thus, while the Act of 1963 abrogates the Common Law rights of a riparian owner against a spray irrigator, the spray irrigator will not enjoy this immunity until a charging scheme is introduced; and in exchange for the loss of the Common Law right, the riparian owner is given a protective right for his own abstractions and the right of action for a breach of statutory duty against a river authority which fails to carry out this duty properly. There are no such safeguards in the present Bill. A provision on these lines was essential in the Water Resources Act, 1963, because it was part of a comprehensive system for bringing all abstractors under some form of control. It is not essential to the present Bill because the Bill makes provision merely for river purification boards to have power to control spray irrigation if and when necessary. The present Bill is not a comprehensive measure as was the Water Resources Act, 1963, and, so far as I can see, there is no reason for altering the Common Law as it applies to abstractors in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (14).— (Lord Lindgren.)

LORD BURTON

The noble Lord, in moving his Amendment, seems to have destroyed the fundamentals of the Bill. Surely, any disgruntled continuous occupier can bring an action against any licence holder for doing what his licence entitled him to do. Surely, the action which should be taken by the disgruntled person should be to appeal against the licence in the first place.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and adding to them, is this point not covered by Clause 7(1): Where by reason of exceptional shortage of rain or other emergency it appears to a river purification board that it is necessary … to withdraw or restrict the water being issued to any particular person? Surely, if someone feels that his rights are being damaged, the proper action is to go to the purification board and point this out; whereupon, if the board are satisfied, then they can restrict or, indeed, withdraw altogether the licence given to a person to abstract water from the river for spray irrigation. It appears to me that the withdrawal of subsection (14) would simply mean that someone might be prosecuted for doing what he had the legal right to do.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am grateful to my noble friend because I think that what I have to say he has said almost in one sentence. Nevertheless, I will plough through my reply. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, for giving me quite satisfactory notice, and I hope that we shall be able to get on the Record an equally satisfactory reply.

As the noble Lord recognises, the detailed provisions of the Water Resources Act, 1963, are not relevant to the limited situation with which this Bill deals. There is a great difference between England and Scotland. For instance, there is no real reliance in Scotland by water undertakers—and I think that is the noble Lord's interest—on abstraction from rivers, as there is in England. In Scotland, there is now ample water for everyone without control, and apparently without any infringement of common rights. But the spray irrigation characteristic is to draw large quantities of water, frequently from comparatively small streams; and spray irrigation puts nothing back. By and large, power and industry who may be big abstractors return much of the water extracted, and it is up to the board to see that what is returned is not harmful.

As the spray irrigator is the only water undertaker who ought to be controlled in Scotland, it is only right that he should be protected. But the noble Lord's objection is to the effect of the licensing system on common rights. As spray irrigation could now, in Scotland, be in breach of the Common Law, if it is going to be allowed under proper control the possession of a licence must be a defence. But it is quite wrong to think that the holder of the licence can, as the noble Lord said, take all the water he likes regardless of any damage to the rights of other riparian owners and abstractors.

The terms of the licence—the very reason for the licence—is to prevent that sort of thing from happening, and a licence will be necessary wherever my right honourable friend considers there is need for a control area to be established, and that control area will stretch from the source to the mouth of the stream. But before the area is established—and this is the point which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made— everyone concerned has the right of objection, and every year likewise has the right to make representation to the board, who must take every interest into account.

So, in the control area, anyone affected by an operator, if he is operating in accordance with the licence, has his interest and right protected without its being necessary to invoke Common Law. But the licence is a defence only and does not prevent Common Law action from being taken. Of course, if the operator is contravening the terms of his licence, or is operating outside the control area, a Common Law action can be taken by anyone injured by the operation.

Finally, just consider what would be the effect of accepting this Amendment. As my noble friend, Lord Burton, said, anyone who has made his objections to the board or to the Secretary of State during the granting of the control order or the granting of the licence and has been turned down can endeavour to raise the whole matter again through the courts, thus making the courts and not the boards or the Secretary of State the final deciders as to whether the use of the installation should be permitted as licensed, or even permitted at all. Just to take the subsection out of the Bill would wreck its purpose because of the then unpredictable validity of the licence, unless—and I am sure your Lordships would not want this—we were to alter the whole structure of the Bill and put the courts in place of the purification boards.

LORD LINDGREN

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that full and detailed reply. As he said, my interest in water arises very largely from public water supplies and the responsibility of the statutory water undertakers to meet the public health requirements under their statutory duties. I agree that so far as Scotland is concerned the problem of water is not as great as it is in England with its concentrated population. But there was a time in England when water supplies seemed ample; and we may, seeing that Scotland is part of the British Isles, have to take some of their water as we had to take supplies from the Welsh hills. Therefore we should look at the country as a whole and the water supply of the country for national purposes. But I admit, quite frankly, that that position has not arisen at the moment. Therefore, having raised the point and got the very satisfactory reply from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall be agreed to?

4.52 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

Your Lordships may recollect that on Second Reading I raised a number of points which seemed to me to be of importance and which were not covered by the terms of the Bill. I thought it reasonable that those people who had invested their money in spray irrigation should have some prior consideration over those who merely wanted to jump on a successful bandwagon. Secondly, I thought it reasonable that the claims of those prior applicants and the general use of the river should not be spoiled by granting too many licences, but that, rather than granting a number of licences to a large number of people, each to abstract a quantity of water insufficient for the purposes, the number of licences should be restricted to what was reasonable in the best interests of the community.

The third point on which I indicated I might seek to move an Amendment was that I thought it rather unsatisfactory that when an individual had gone to all the bother of installing equipment he had the apparent security only of getting a licence for one year, which in itself would not justify the expenditure. Because of a letter which I received from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, I did not put down any Amendments along those lines, because I gather it is the intention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to issue guidance to the river purification boards on these points. But perhaps it would be in the interests of all those concerned in this matter if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, felt able to make a statement as to the Government's intentions in these matters at this stage.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for giving me an opportunity to put on record that part of the letter which I wrote to certain noble Lords and which referred to the question of existing installers having special rights in regard to their installa- tions. The other parts of my letter, which were less important, will by the time this debate is over be on the record in other things I have to say.

The problem that faces us—and this was raised many times on Second Reading—is this question of what happens to the existing installer. As the last Amendment made clear, there is now not a clear right at Common Law for abstraction of water for spray irrigation. So it would not be fair to give any special right to those who had already installed over those who had not done so, probably simply because of this doubtful legality of abstraction. There were also those who had only recently become owners of suitable land. Having said that, I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend will include in the guidance he will give to the boards a request that special attention will be paid to the interests of those who have already installed. He will also draw attention to the need to issue only sufficient licences to enable operating installations in normal times to justify the cost of installation.

An additional safeguard lies in the right of appeal. Refusal to grant a licence for equipment already installed would be something my right honourable friend would examine with great care on appeal. This is the sort of Bill where there are so many and diverse local considerations that the decision is best left to the local statutory body, in the knowledge that good men and true with all the local knowledge are most likely to balance the conflicts of interest there must be and arrive at just conclusions. To try to specify in this Bill some—and it could only be some—of the many problems that may arise and to indicate solutions might tie the hands of the boards in making what they considered was the right decision in every case. I must finish, as I began, by being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the opportunity to make that statement.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was quite justified in suggesting that in many cases it would be better to allow a limited number of licences, where in each case a sufficient amount of water would be allowed which would make the subsequent agricultural operations worth while. But I think attention might be drawn to the possibility of a somewhat different type of licence. Where a stream which may have a very small flow during the summer has a very considerable one in winter and spring, and where an occupier is prepared to make his own storage capacity, for which he will doubtless receive Government help, he might be given a licence which would enable him to withdraw water from the said stream when there is a superfluity of it during the winter, and then use only his own storage capacity for his irrigation in the dry months. He would not thereafter be allowed to abstract further water until, in the opinion of the board, it was justifiable for him to do so.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My recollection of the Second Reading debate is that my noble friend the Minister said that that would be perfectly in order. Any farmer could construct his own tank and fill it during the winter, and then it would be up to him to irrigate; and I think my noble friend indicated that there would be normal agricultural grants for permanent equipment.

LORD CRAIGTON

Yes. This is a very interesting point and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has suggested what we think will be the solution. It may happen that at any time the board will have more applications for licences than can be granted, and in that case they would be able to suggest to the applicant that if he put in pond storage which would be licensed to be filled at times when water was available, this would be the only possible solution and the right solution to spray irrigation. I said at Second Reading that there is a grant of 50 per cent. available for the construction of reservoirs and dams on farms, and we are very keen to see these go in. These grants can be applied for either by individual farmers or by two or more farmers working together. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. We feel that after all the spray irrigation licences have been issued for direct abstractions the only other possible step is for new people to put in pond storage.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Special provisions regarding first application for a licence

4—(1) A river purification board may at any time consider a first application for a licence in respect of abstraction of water from a particular source of supply from a person who satisfies them that in all the circumstances he could not reasonably comply with the provisions of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section regarding applications, and the provisions of that section except subsection (2) shall, subject to the next following subsection, apply to such an application and to any licence granted in pursuance thereof.

(2) On making an application under the foregoing subsection or under section 6(2) of this Act and section 3 as applied thereby, the applicant shall publish in a local newspaper, circulating in the area where the licence would have or has effect, a notice stating the nature of his application, and in relation to that application the dates mentioned in subsections (5) and (6) of the last foregoing section shall not apply, but—

  1. (a) representations against the application may not be entertained if made later than 14 days from the date of publication of the notice as aforesaid;
  2. (b) the board shall have 28 days from the said date to arrive at a decision in relation to the application;
and subsections (5) to (7) of the last foregoing section shall have effect accordingly.

5.0 p.m.

LORD CRAIGTON

As drafted, Clause 4 lays down a procedure for first applications not made by September 15. As amended, the clause also covers cases where the holder of an existing licence has failed, perhaps because of sudden illness, to apply on time for the renewal of his licence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, leave out ("a first") and insert ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 26, after ("subsection (2)") insert ("and paragraph (a) of subsection (4)"). —(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 33, after ("stating") insert ("briefly").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, leave out ("(6)") and insert("(7)").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 42, leave out ("to") and insert ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:

Compensation for refusal, revocation or variation of licences

" .—(1) Where a person has before the relevant date abstracted water from a source of supply for the purpose of spray irrigation and has carried out a scheme of spray irrigation by means of equipment installed for that purpose and—

  1. (a) his application for a licence to abstract water for the purposes of the said scheme is refused; or
  2. (b) such licence after having been granted is revoked or varied otherwise than in pursuance of section 6 of this Act; and
it is shown that the holder of the licence—

  1. (a) has incurred expenditure in carrying out work which is rendered abortive or in providing equipment which is rendered useless by the refusal. revocation or variation, as the case may be, of the licence, or
  2. (b) has otherwise sustained loss or damage which is directly attributable to such refusal, revocation or variation,
the river purification board shall pay to him compensation in respect of that expenditure, loss or damage.

(2) Any claim for compensation under this section shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration and the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 shall apply thereto as if it were a claim for compensation under that Act.

(3) For the purposes of this section 'the relevant date' means the date on which a control order relating to the source of supply in question comes into force."

The noble Earl said: Before moving this Amendment, may I add my congratulations to my noble friend on the occasion of his maiden speech. I think we would all agree that it was a good performance. He spoke clearly and, as a landowner, farmer and a county councillor, with intimate knowledge of his subject. I hope that in him we shall have a valuable addition to the number of Scottish speakers when from time to time we have our Scottish debates.

In spite of what the noble Lord has said about the refusal of licences to those farmers who have already installed irrigation equipment, I feel constrained to move this Amendment, if only to put it on record, because it deals with compensation for those farmers who, before the coming into operation of a control order, have laid out money in installing spray irrigation equipment. This is a matter upon which many noble Lords were agreed on the argument of Lord Hughes on the Second Reading of the Bill.

If a control order comes into being, for such farmers who are refused licences, or for those for whom, when granted licences, the amount of water available is lower than they could extract hitherto, of course the result will be a loss of profit and consequent hardship. Therefore, many of us in Scotland, not only farmers, feel strongly that it is only fair that in such cases the river purification board should pay compensation. If they have no funds of their own, they should, if necessary, be supplied with funds for this purpose. I feel that it is going to bear hardly on farmers. I know several farmers who have spent hundreds of pounds on installing irrigation equipment, many in my own county, and it will he hard for them if they cannot be absolutely assured that this money will not be thrown away.

The noble Lord says that people in abstracting water from rivers have been committing an offence. But if for all these years they have been committing an offence, why have they not been prosecuted for it? It has been going on for years and years. Why should they be penalised for an offence which nobody even knew was an offence? I have no more to say, other than that I feel strongly about this Amendment, and that these farmers are worthy of some form of compensation or assurance that money which they have spent will not be thrown away. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Haddington.)

LORD BALERNO

Before speaking in support of the Amendment, may I add to what others have said about the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Burton? It is clear that he has a maternal inheritance. Having heard his kinsman already speaking from the Front Bench earlier this afternoon, I believe the talents are shared on that side of the family. I hope that we shall hear more from him in the future because he has a wide experience, particularly of matters concerning the Highlands.

I must apologise for being unable to be present on Second Reading which took place on Monday. May 11. A Monday Sitting is rather difficult for some of us in Scotland. Before speaking to this Amendment, I must disclose my interest in the matter, first of all, as a polluter of water. For many generations I have been a polluter of the water of Leith, and in a slightly different place so were my grandfather, my great-grandfather and probably those long before them. The second interest is that we use organic irrigation, and have installed apparatus which is also capable of being used for spray irrigation.

If I may claim your Lordships' indulgence slightly to digress upon this point, modern animal husbandry is in many cases leading to organic irrigation, to the solution of the dung and excrement from the livestock and the spraying of that on the ground, as economic both in manpower and in the saving of the natural resources; and forbye (as we say in Scotland) it helps to keep the rivers pure. The danger that this can constitute is that spray irrigation is defined in the Bill as water or other liquid emerging (in whatever form) from apparatus designed or adapted to eject liquid into the air in the form of jets or sprays". On many farms, including my own, the water comes from the farm burn running through the ground; and, as my noble friend Lord Craigton said on Second Reading, at Common Law a riparian owner has rights to take water for what are known as primary uses—that is, drink for man and beast, and water for ordinary domestic purposes. I wonder whether I could presume that "domestic purposes" would include all water required to maintain the cleanliness of domestic animals as well as the cleanliness of man. It would encourage me if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would give a verbal assurance of this nature, when the interpretation of the Act will depend not so much on the lawyers as upon a board.

The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in this House on Tuesday last, said that in this country the judges are forbidden to find out what Parliament meant. It seems to me that by the constitution of the boards they will not be excluded from discovering what Parliament meant, and, indeed, we have an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that his right honourable friend will make certain that the boards are informed of the intention of Parliament.

I should like now to address myself more directly to the Amendment and the protection of those who have already installed spray irrigation—points which have been raised so clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Strathclyde. The lot of the agricultural improver in this country is not usually a very happy one. The absolute pioneer has frequently died in poverty, and some have gone bankrupt. Few have cashed in on their inventiveness. It is their neighbours, who look over the hedges or the dykes, who usually manage to reap the financial reward of their enterprise. However, I would add that in this case —in the area the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, knows very well, and perhaps the principal part from where the water is drawn—it is most unlikely that the enterprising farmers who inaugurate spray irrigation will ever go bankrupt, at any rate, in the foreseeable future.

But I would draw attention to the fact that there can be a danger in maintaining for too long existing spray irrigation rights. It might discourage farmers from creating farm reservoirs which, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said, are an essential part of spray irrigation. It is this off-peak storage which has been so strongly pressed by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and which the farmers in his district are showing considerable initiative in getting into operation. And, thanks to the 50 per cent. grant which they obtained from the Government, they seem to be able to do this at reasonable cost. As farmers, we are most grateful for a Government policy that makes this possible.

I am not altogether certain about the wisdom of storage of water for more than one farm at a time. The essence of spray irrigation is that once you have started, you must continue it until nature takes over with a good shower of rain. Therefore there will always be dispute, if two farmers own a reservoir. One of the primary causes of war, at any rate in olden times, was over who was to own the water holes. I should have thought that any undue encouragement for common or shared water holes in this country would lead to further confusion, and possibly to the need for further legislation.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

If I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, I should like to say that my whole object on Second Reading in suggesting this kind of combined operation was that two farmers might divide the cost between them, whereas for one farmer it might be an extremely expensive operation to put in spray irrigation equipment and at the same time to find money for off-peak storage.

LORD BALERNO

I have seen a farm, not a hundred miles from where Lord Haddington lives, on which I was amazed at the speed and efficiency with which a small storage reservoir, with a capacity of around half a million gallons, was put in. It was the rather smaller, easily-excavated type of reservoir of which I was thinking, which can be lined with polythene and made completely watertight. I understand that the polythene sheeting lasts quite a long time.

The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, referred on Second Reading to river purification boards, and welcomed the probable change in their constitution. I should like to support his description of some of them as little more than "face savers". I am glad that any reconstitution may enable certain of the boards to get closer in touch with the realities of the situation, both industrially and agriculturally. I admit that there are some boards which have been extremely helpful. In conclusion, as this is a purely Scottish Bill, I should like to ask my noble friend why we must use in the Bill the word "stream", had whether the Government would consider substituting the word "burn". Although this has to do with water, I should like to add that it is nothing to do with the question of Admiralty nomenclature.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

As my noble friend Lord Haddington said when he spoke a few moments ago, many noble Lords on Second Reading stated their fears that injustice might be done to those who had been pioneers in spray irrigation and who consequently had spent much money in providing themselves with the necessary equipment for this purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, promised on that occasion that he would look into the matter and see what could be done to preserve their interests. He subsequently wrote to me a letter (for which I wish to thank him) which went fully into the whole matter; and while he could not specifically get rid of my fears in total, he did give assurances which went a great way towards removing such fears as I have. I hope that my noble friend will he able to repeat those assurances in this Committee to-day, for I believe that if he does, they will go far to resolve the fears which have been expressed by others who have spoken.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

While entirely agreeing with my noble friend Lord Haddington that where a person is put to real loss or hardship he should get compensation, I would ask my noble friend the Minister to take into consideration the fact that on Second Reading, when replying to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, he said that the small additional net expenses would come on to the rates in the ordinary way. If these claims are going to total up to large figures, I would ask whether he could reconsider this matter and whether they could not become Exchequer payments rather than local rate payments. Also I would ask in what degree the equipment, when a licence is not granted, will be just put into store, to be brought out again when new licences are granted.

LORD CRAIGTON

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was, I am afraid, not in the Chamber when, in answer to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the Question, That Clause 3 stand part, I replied to the points that he asked me to make. My noble friend Lord Balerno makes the fascinating proposal that Scottish legislation should include, where applicable, Scottish words. But we must think about this. The difficulty here of putting—

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Will the noble Lord forgive me? If he does put in the word "burn", as it was pronounced by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, I hope he will correct his pronounciation. It is not "burn"; it is "burun".

LORD CRAIGTON

The difficulty is that the word "burn" is not normally used to denote a substantial river. The word "stream" is used throughout this Bill to describe the water courses, both large and small, affected in control areas. According to Murray's English Dictionary a stream is: A course of water flowing continuously along a bed on the earth, forming a river, rivulet or brook. So that whereas a burn is not a river, a river is a stream and so is a burn. Of course, there is also the Scots word "streamie", but that is a streamlet or burn, also.

The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, asked about organic irrigation. I am advised that the water or other liquid emerging is organic irrigation, and that if the water was taken from a stream in a control area it would then be necessary to obtain a licence. The Department of Agriculture welcome and encourage this practice, as would a river purification board, of course, particularly as it contributes towards reducing pollution from farm effluents. I do not think, therefore, that there would be many, if any, cases of difficulty in securing a licence; and, of course, if the water is taken from the mains no licence is required.

LORD BALERNO

What I am concerned with is the fee that has to be paid by a farmer who is doing something for the benefit of the community.

LORD CRAIGTON

It is not a great deal of money, and I feel, as in other things, that if we make exceptions for one sort of irrigation we shall not know where we may have to stop.

I come now to the basic question of compensation. We have considered this matter most carefully. The Amendment suggests compensation to those who have installed plant before the coming into force of the control order, and I must say that there are substantial difficulties here. We are advised that the abstraction of water for spray irrigation can, as has been said before, well be in breach of Common Law. My noble friend Lord Haddington asked why there was no offence before in Common Law, but, of course, spray irrigation is a new thing and spray irrigation draws a lot more water than any other apparatus that draws water, and does not put it back into the stream. As my noble friend Lord Balerno said, all that is allowed to be taken under Common Law is water for man and beast and ordinary domestic purposes.

The Bill provides a defence against a Common Law action, provided that the abstraction is in conformity with the terms of the licence. Is it not a doubtful proposition, against this background of legal uncertainty, to give compensation in such circumstances to existing installers? Furthermore—and this is very important—the very inclusion in this Bill of such a provision as is suggested would surely encourage others who, perhaps for reasons of possible illegality, have not yet decided to install plant before the coming into force of an order, on the assurance in the Bill that they could either use it or get compensation. This might lead in some areas, when the order first came into force, to a call for more licences than the water could carry.

There is one final point on this question of compensation. Those concerned go into this proposal of installing spray irrigation rather as other interests, perhaps, apply for a public-house licence. They know that it is an annual licence and that the practice will be that, save in very exceptional circumstances, a licence once granted will be renewed annually. So it is hard to see any clear grounds for compensation under these conditions. For these reasons I ask your Lordships to be assured that the provisions, especially the appeal provisions, in the Bill give existing installers fair and proper protection; and I would ask the noble Earl, in view of what I have said, whether he could consider withdrawing his Amendment.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

With your Lordships' permission, I must contradict the noble Lord when he tells me that spray irrigation is something quite new. It has been going on for years and years. However, the assurance he has given me about this matter, and certainly the point he has made that such an Amendment to the Bill might induce too many people to want to install spray irrigation plants in a certain river, go far to relieving my anxiety. I really have no desire to test the opinion of the Committee on this matter, but I still feel very strongly that some kind of compensation should be paid. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Special provisions for shortage or abundance of water]:

LORD CRAIGTON

Although a board would probably in any event advise licence-holders of temporary restrictions or temporary relaxations, it seems wise to add this subsection which requires boards to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 42, at end insert— ("(3) A river purification board shall communicate any decision taken by them under this section to the holders of licences affected thereby ").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Schedule [Provisions as to Applications for, making, coming into Operation, and Validity of, Control Orders]:

LORD CRAIGTON

With your Lordships' approval, I should like to move the last three Amendments together. On the Second Reading my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell expressed concern that, in making application for a control order, the provisions of paragraph 3(1)(a) might involve a board in identifying and notifying such a large number of individual riparian occupiers as to make this provision too onerous, if not unworkable, in some cases. Similar views have been expressed by the Association of County Councils and by the River Purification Boards Association. This Amendment meets this point. It is left to the board to make suggestions to my right honourable friend for cutting down the work involved by full compliance with paragraph 3(1)(a), and it leaves to the Secretary of State the final approval of this cutting down, both in principle and in detail. I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (a). —(Lord Craigton.)

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

As these Amendments are being moved now, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for meeting the point which I raised on Second Reading. I assure him that, so far as I can understand from people I have consulted, the Amendment completely satisfies them.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Do the last words of the third Amendment cover publication in newspapers? The Amendment says: as respects further publication of those documents. Would it not be a good thing, in order to be quite sure that everybody understood what was happening, if there were compulsory publication in a local newspaper?

LORD CRATGTON

This refers only to the notification of riparian proprietors. It is an alteration to paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Bill, with regard to the notification of anyone with any interest in land to which a control order applies. Otherwise, the rest of the provisions apply as in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 32, leave out ("and").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CRAIGTON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 35, at end insert ("; and (e) every person known to the river purification board to have any interest in any land to which the control order applied for would relate:

Provided that where it appears to the Secretary of State, from representations made to him by the board, that compliance with the provisions of this sub-paragraph would be unduly onerous, it shall be sufficient compliance if the board, having submitted proposals in this regard to the Secretary of State, take such steps as he may direct as respects service of the said copy documents upon such of the persons as aforesaid as in his opinion may be materially affected by the control order if made, and as respects further publication of those documents.")—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.