WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I should like your Lordships to forgive me for detaining you for one moment in order that I may make a personal statement at this stage. Your Lordships may recall that, on the Committee stage of this Bill, I moved a long and controversial Amendment about the amalgamation of the Wear and Tees River Board with that in the Northumberland area. During the course of making the case before your Lordships' Committee I quoted as being in support of what I was saying three water companies in the North-East of England. I have since been reproached for having misrepresented them. The water companies were the Sunderland and South Shields Water Company, the 891 Durham County Water Board and the Hartlepools Water Company. There is not an Amendment down at this stage of the Bill on the occasion of which I could mention this matter, and I therefore thought that I would ask your Lordships' permission to put this error right at this stage. I am told that those bodies are not in support of the case that I made and, since professional reputations and other matters of importance are at stake, I thought it right at this stage to clear the matter up.

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

My Lords, this Amendment does not make any alteration of substance, but is put down in view of the plea made by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross during the Committee stage, that it should be made clear how river authorities will exercise functions relating to the prevention of pollution of rivers and streams. It is still necessary to keep the reference, now in paragraph (d), to … other statutory provision not contained in, or made or issued under, the Rivers Boards Act, 1948 since river boards have functions to perform under other enactments, such as, for instance, the Pipe-Lines Act, 1962; and indeed some river authorities will also exercise functions which are being conferred on the river boards they succeed by local enactments—for example, the Kent River Authority will be a harbour authority. I beg to move.

§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Hastings for this Amendment. I hope I shall not be considered to be carping if I ask whether he would try to go further still. He made the point on Committee that he was trying to get as great a degree of 892 consolidation in this Bill as was possible, and I do understand that the powers referred to in paragraph (d) may be diverse. Nevertheless, the river boards have been in existence only since 1948, and I cannot believe that it would be impossible to put in some Schedule a list of the subsidiary enactments or Private Acts which have given specific powers to these river boards during this time. The point is that not only the river boards themselves, but other people who come into contact with them, will want to know what their powers are, and unless it appears in some fairly clear form in this Bill they will have to do a tremendous amount of research and may well miss the exact point that they are looking for. I ask my noble friend whether he can try to do a little more than he has already done.

§ LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I will gladly undertake to have another look at this to see whether we can go a little further, but I am afraid that will hardly be possible in your Lordships' House; it will have to be in another place. However, we will have another look.

§ LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE

My Lords, I should like briefly to support this Amendment, in so far as it seeks to recognise the fact that the special obligations imposed on the statutory water undertakings places them in a category different from other interests. I confess that I find it difficult to argue that the only way this can be recognised is to give them the right to appoint the members who are to represent the water supply interests. At the same time the phrase in this clause "qualified in respect of public water supply" does not necessarily mean qualified to represent the interests of the statutory water undertakers in general or those in the area in question. Experience of local conditions, and knowledge of the problems of the statutory water undertakers in the area in question, are clearly very important in this context.

The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, in Committee gave a specific assurance (column 375 of Hansard of December 6 last year) that statutory water undertakers in the area would be consulted when the appointment of a member or members to represent the water supply interests was being considered. Such an assurance is very welcome to the statutory water undertakers, and if a way could be found of writing that into the Bill, I feel that much of the substance of this Amendment would be secured, even though the logic of Lord Lindgren's argument might not be fully answered.

§ LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said, these two Amendments were put down during the Committee stage—I think in precisely the same terms. We had a long argument and discussion upon them on that occasion. I must confess that I am a little surprised, and a little disappointed, that the noble Lord has felt it necessary to put them down again and re-argue the case. On this occasion he has slightly altered the emphasis of his case. For instance, he did not really refer to the Amendment, which asks the Government to let the statutory water undertaker decide how many representatives there would be on the river authority. Of course, that is completely looked after under Clause 3 (1) where, as a result of the statutory obligation to consult, the Government will constitute these river authorities in accordance with the relative importance of the various interests concerned, after agreeing those numbers with the statutory water undertakers, industry, agriculture, fisheries and so on. So that in respect of numbers, which he has overlooked on this occasion, although it forms part of his Amendment, the fact is that that aspect is already completely looked after in the Bill.

The noble Lord emphasised the question of representation under Clause 7, and still argued that his proposal was a very different thing from appointing people qualified in respect of public water supply. He was asking for direct representation of the statutory water undertakers, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has pointed out, it is in fact something slightly different. One point is that the Government are trying to get a balanced representation on these river authorities and they do not want people simply to represent specific interests. They want people, qualified by knowledge and experience so far as their particular area is concerned, who will operate as a team and help the river authority to perform its new functions really effectively. We still maintain that the only way to obtain this result is for appointment to be by the Minister himself, so that he can be free, without any prejudice or partiality, to choose the best individuals available. But he will do so only after consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, reminded us, with the interests concerned; and that 897 goes for agriculture, fisheries, land drainage and industry as well. We must stand on that, and we cannot agree that there is any case for special representation of statutory water undertakers compared to any other interest.

Another argument of the noble Lord, which he reiterated, was in respect of the finance. He has argued before and does so again now that, because the statutory water undertakers would be contributing very substantially to the new functions of the river authority, therefore they should be able to nominate their own representatives. But quite apart from the fact which he again mentioned, that I made this distinction between the local authorities who are representing the ratepayers, and the other interests who are paying for direct benefits to themselves, I think it is worth mentioning, and worth reminding the statutory water undertakers, that the very great bulk of their abstraction will be made pursuant to licences of right, with which no charge will be associated at the outset for several years; and that, even when charging schemes do come into force, they, above all people, are likely to enjoy a reduced rate of charge because of the contribution made by their works to the fulfilment of the purpose of the river authority in discharging its new function. That, of course, is allowed for under Clause 58, and there is no doubt that the statutory water undertakers will benefit greatly from that clause. So I do not think there is really a case for special representation which they can prove on grounds of finance relative to the contributions of other people.

Then we come to the last argument of the noble Lord, which was on this special position of the statutory water undertakers. Of course your Lordships will remember that this was really the first of a long series of Amendments which were based upon the fact that the statutory water undertakers have a special statutory obligation to provide supplies, particularly for domestic purposes. Therefore, even at this early stage of the proceedings, I think it is only fair to draw your Lordships' attention to a Government Amendment which is to follow Clause 93, in which this particular statutory obligation of the water undertakers is acknowledged. We shall have an opportunity to argue that case fully, not only 898 on the Government Amendment, but earlier than that—probably to-day—on another Amendment, that to Clause 29, by the noble Lord opposite. Therefore I do not propose to embark on that now. But I think that, from the point of view of the special position, that aspect is looked after either under the noble Lord's own Amendment or under a Government Amendment, which of course we prefer, and which we shall argue in due course. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel I have again made out my case adequately, and that he has had a fair answer. I trust that in the circumstances he will see his way to withdrawing this Amendment.

§ LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, is surprised and disappointed, but one does feel that this is a matter of principle. After all, there is an argument on behalf of the Minister on the basis of the county council and county borough representatives, and the independent ministerial representatives, inasmuch as they represent two very large interests: the first, that of the ratepayer, and, the second, that of the taxpayer. But it is equally true that, so far as the statutory water undertakers are concerned, they are exceedingly large contributors to the resources of the river board, and upon the effective and efficient working of the river board the success of the water undertaker very largely depends.

While it is true that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said that there will be consultation—and one appreciates that—the wording of the Bill is that the person shall be qualified as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, matters relating to water supply. I know some very admirable persons who are consultant water engineers, and many admirable persons who have been associated with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the past, who one could say are extremely well-qualified and extremely knowledgeable so far as water supply is concerned, but as regards actual experience of the functioning of a statutory water undertakers and of the administrative difficulties they have to face, they do not have the same direct knowledge or the same responsibility.

899 I think equally of a retired Army officer who has been abroad using his experience in the Royal Engineers or somewhere else to provide local water supplies. One does not think that that is the type of representation there ought to be. There is this difficult point. If the Government go to a group of statutory water undertakers and say, "Here we have Mr. X or Brigadier Y. We propose to put him on the authority as representing statutory water undertakers", it is extraordinarily difficult for a group of business people or local authorities associated with a statutory water undertaker to say, "This fellow does not really represent us and we are going to object to his being appointed." The most they can say is, "We do not think he really can represent us, but we are not going to object to his coming on to the authority. All we hope is that when he is here he will see our point of view and do the best he can for us." Therefore, I really do not think the Government have made their case. But in view of the position taken up by the Ministers in charge, there is really very little left for me to do other than to ask that the Amendment should be negatived. I certainly will not press it to a Division.

§ LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, as the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment has said, he realises the two Ministers concerned—that is to say, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and also the President of the Board of Trade—have consulted about this matter. They have considered this particular point and still prefer that the provisions of the Bill should remain as they are. The reason is really that in the appointment concerned it is a question of appointing somebody not simply familiar with industry in general, but with industrial water problems in particular—and water affairs come quite clearly under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and not under the Board of Trade. Apart from that, the noble Earl has made the point that perhaps there could be some improvement within the Ministry of Housing itself, administratively speaking, in order to strengthen the water side which deals with industry. I think that was the point he was really trying to make. Without saying anything definite, I should like him to realise that we are looking at that particular aspect of the matter, and he can rest assured that the Ministry which I represent will make adequate provision to look after the interests of industrial water users.

§ LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I found my noble friend's answer reasonably convincing, but, at the same time, it seems to produce a certain anomaly in that in 901 Clause 8 he is not carrying out the precepts which he is laying down for Clause 6. There, in Clause 8, where there is any question of anybody wanting to sail boats on any of this water, the Minister of Transport himself appoints the member. Again, when there is any question of coal interests being involved—and presumably it is only coal interests qua water that are involved—the member is not appointed by his Minister but direct by the National Coal Board. I should have thought that the two arguments were inconsistent, and that if he accepts the premises which he has laid down in reply to my noble friend he ought to amend Clause 8 to have these members appointed by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, too.

§ LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I am not sure that I am entitled to reply again on Report stage.

§ LORD HAWKE

Yes, you are.

§ LORD HASTINGS

But, with the leave of the House, I would merely point out that the two cases which the noble Lord has mentioned refer to statutory authorities, and, of course, industry is not that.

§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

With permission, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

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

My Lords, this drafting Amendment has two purposes, which I will explain only briefly. The first part of the new subsection—that is, from the beginning down to the word "respectively" in the fifth line—removes any doubt as to whether a map prepared under the clause is a "document" within the meaning of the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, as applied to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The second part of the subsection—that is, from the words "and that Act" in the fifth line down to the end—provides that a map prepared by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food jointly under subsection (1) of the clause can be proved by production of a copy certified by the appropriate officer 902 of either Ministry. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like straight away to assure my noble friend that we, of course, attach great importance to this question of the quality of water. We realise, in particular, that for industry the quality of this valuable product is often just as important as its quantity. In fact, if I may cap my noble friend's quotation, at our Committee stage I stated quite categorically, 904 in the column after that to which he referred: …we fully recognize—and here I come back to what I have just said—that the Board in discharging their conservation responsibilities must have regard to quality as well as quantity". I am quite prepared to stand on those words.

Nevertheless, I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept my noble friend's Amendment, and for two reasons. In the first place, the Water Resources Board, if they were to discharge the duty this Amendment would lay upon them, would, I suggest, need to concern themselves with the day-to-day exercise by river authorities of their prevention of pollution powers—to interest themselves in individual applications for consent to discharge effluents. That is because anti-pollution work is essentially a matter of case work. It is true there is what is known as the Royal Commission standard, a dilution factor, but that is not an overall panacea. Each application for discharge of effluent must be dealt with on its own individual merits. The only way for the Water Resources Board effectively to advise would be by dealing with individual applications; and that is not the sort of job with which the Water Resources Board should properly be concerned. The Board should be concerned with the water quality as well as water quantity, but their concern should be overall and strategic, and they should not be required to exercise directly day-to-day supervision over the river authorities in their discharge of antipollution duties. If they were to do so there would be a clear risk of confusion between their advice activities and the exercise by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing's appellate function under the various river pollution Acts.

My second objection to the Amendment is the reference in it to the maintenance of the quality of water. The objective of the various pollution Acts is to secure an improvement in water quality and such improvements are being made. With many of our badly-polluted rivers the status quo is not nearly good enough. It would be wrong, therefore, to put the Board under a duty—as this Amendment would—to concern themselves only with the maintenance of water quality. I would readily grant that the 905 Board should have a locus standi in matters of water quality. I would submit, however, that this is better secured by the Amendment which I am just about to move than it is by my noble friend's Amendment.

If Amendment No. 7 is accepted, the Water Resources Board will—as I shall try to explain—need to concern themselves with matters of water quality and with matters of water pollution. My noble friend can be assured that where the Board consider action to improve the quality of water is necessary they will be able to say so. More important, if the Minister agrees with them, he will, under Clause 95 of this Bill, be able to make certain that the river authorities take the necessary action. Those are the reasons why, whilst being not unsympathetic to the purpose behind it, I cannot recommend that the Amendment be adopted by your Lordships.

§ LORD MOLSON

My Lords, we have listened to a very subtle argument from the Minister of State and I am bound to say that I am a little surprised that the Government are taking the view that they are. He has made it plain that he entirely agrees with the purpose that my noble friend, Lord Jessel, has in mind. He contemplates that, in their general strategic responsibilities, the Water Resources Board will, in fact, concern themselves with the quality of water. Therefore, having heard that, I would suppose he might be willing to accept the Amendment, or at any rate the spirit of the Amendment, with a view to providing for it to be spelt out in this Bill. The argument he has used against it is that if the Water Resources Board are directed specifically to deal with this matter from a strategic point of view they will find themselves obliged to deal with individual minor cases. Well, my Lords, the Government are advised by those who are concerned with the drafting of Bills, and we must, I suppose, assume that the purpose of my noble friend, Lord Jessel, will be achieved but that it is undesirable to incorporate it in words in the Bill. I must say I remain sceptical about it, but we must rely upon the Government's assurance.

§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

I am rather pleased to learn that the noble Earl has turned down this Amendment. It would seem both remarkable and ridi- 906 culous, on the face of it, if one simply looked at it from this point of view. The existing river boards have been looking after pollution of water for the last twelve years. They therefore have become skilled operatives in dealing with pollution. If they have not, then they have missed the bus. But to invite the Water Resources Board, who have had no knowledge of or contact with polluted water or clean water, or cleaner water, to advise how to do it those who have been doing the job for twelve to fourteen years does seem rather ridiculous. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment may have something deeper and more profound in his mind than I can see; but if there is nothing deeper or more profound than the simple argument as to whether we should invite the Water Resources Board, with no knowledge of pollution, to advise those who have had twelve to fourteen years' experience of pollution, then I am sure the noble Earl is quite correct when he rejects this Amendment.

§ LORD JESSEL

My Lords, in spite of the unexpected and powerful support of my noble friend Lord Molson, I am going to withdraw this Amendment, because I am convinced by the noble Earl's argument. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on his next Amendment, No. 7, which he assures me will partly cover the principle I have in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I should like to add a word of support to the argument of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House. I agree with him that technically the Government Amendment covers this point, but sometimes it is very important to underline policy in an Act of Parliament, and my impression is that up and down the country a tremendous waste of water is going on. The more we do at headquarters (so to speak) to prevent this happening, the better; and I am sure that this is one way of doing it. My mind was very much brought to this matter some years ago, when I took part in an inquiry into a proposal to raise the level of a lake in the Lake District which is used as a reservoir. The proposal was being supported by a local authority already using water from this lake to a very substantial extent. In fact, they were just about the highest users of water in the country per head of population, yet they had no particular industry which called for water, and it was a puzzle to everybody why they should be taking this line.

We were advised by a water engineer of some eminence who was assisting us with our case that it was obvious to him, having had a look round, that their apparatus, which had been installed many years before, had not been brought up to date, and that in fact they were losing a great deal of the water they were already taking from this reservoir lake. He indicated that they could get all the extra water which they said they required by examining their pipes and seeing that the water did not leak away. That may seem a simple case; but we had interesting talks with this man, and he said that it was symptomatic of what was going on, to his knowledge, in many parts of England. It seems to me—and I hope it does to the noble Earl—important that the need for stopping this sort of thing should be emphasised in this important Bill. For that reason, I support the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson.

§ LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Molson has a real point here, because by inserting these words one is strengthening the hands of the Water Resources Board when the 911 river authorities come to discuss schemes with them. In the drier parts of England we are short of precipitation. There are large parts of England where water supply could be considerably increased, but only at vast capital cost, and our capital resources are distinctly limited. I have been reminded in my local paper that there threatens to be a shortage in my part of the world next summer owing to wastage from burst pipes and so on. When the river authorities come to discuss the question of capital expenditure with the Water Resources Board, the Board will have their hand immensely strengthened if they can point out that by Statute they are given a duty to look after economy in water, as well as the proper use thereof.

§ EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson advised me that, having gone so far, I should perhaps go a little further. That, if I may say so, was rather improper advice, and also dangerous advice, both inside and outside this House, at times. But having said that, and having said that I should like to meet noble Lords who have spoken to this point, I am still, I confess, a little puzzled by this Amendment. I am puzzled, in the first place, by the use of the adjective "economic". Strictly, "economic", as I understand it, is the adjective of which the noun is "economics", but I gather that "economic" is sometimes used in the sense of "economical"; and the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which I consulted this morning, tells me that "economical", in its turn, is sometimes used in the sense of "economic". But whichever meaning we attach to this little word, I suggest that it is not really appropriate in this paragraph. The nice and economical, or economic, little word "proper" does, I submit, everything that is needed.

I argued just now in support of this Amendment why I think that is so, and I will not repeat the argument, save to say (and here I think I am repeating what my noble friend said) that it would embrace "economical" and, for that matter, "economic" My noble friend may well say: "Well, there is no harm in that, and there might be advantage in dotting the i's and crossing the t's here", which is the argument used, I 912 think, by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I think there is also a danger here, because if the words "and economic" were to be inserted after "proper" they would appear to have a restrictive, and I think possibly too restrictive, effect, limiting the Board to considering only those uses of water which are both proper and economic. The two may aften go together, of course; but there may be uses of water which are perfectly proper without being economic; and, indeed, there may be uses which are economic without being altogether proper. All in all, I would suggest that this Amendment to the Amendment is unnecessary, and also that it might have its possibly undesirable consequences. Therefore, I will be, at least at this stage, rather timid and not accept my noble friend's invitation to take that dangerous extra step further.

§ LORD MOLSON

My Lards, without being wholly convinced by the ingenious argument that has been put forward by my noble friend, and having said that I am deeply grateful to him for having gone so far and conceded the substance of what I asked for on the Committee stage, I beg leave to withdraw the further Amendment which I have moved.

§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

My Lords, I do not want to do anything less than the noble Lord, Lord Molson, desires—that is, to be economic in the use of words in this debate—but I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, whether, assuming those words were embodied in the Bill giving power to a river authority or a Water Resources Board to advise the river authority to start experimenting with the desalting of sea water, he would expect that to be done, if at all, by a single river board or a combination of all the 26 river boards, after indulging in a good deal of research? Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us exactly what the experience 915 has been of those on ships and other vessels who have been experimenting with the desalting of sea water. My information is that it is a very costly proceeding. It may ultimately be found to be necessary, but if such an undertaking is bound to be entered upon by any river board, or a number of combined river boards, then I think the Minister in charge of the Bill would have to give the power, with the appropriate restrictions in expenditure, before any single board or combination of hoards would enter on an operation of this description.

We all agree with the noble Lord that wherever our water supplies can be augmented where water is in short supply, then we ought to leave no water unturned, instead of no stone. In the meantime, perhaps the noble Earl will tell us what previous experiments have shown with regard to desalting of water in terms of expense, and whether he thinks that any river board ought to be encouraged to incur vast expenditure unless and until they know much more about it than appears to be known at the present moment.

§ LORD HAWKE

My Lords, at first sight my noble friend's Amendment may seem a trifle fantastic, but I do not believe it is in the least fantastic. I understand that the extraction of fresh water from the sea is a viable proposition in the drier lands such as the Persian Gulf. My impression is that the price has come down to comparatively few shillings per thousand gallons. That, of course, is based on cheap oil fuel. I do not think it is a question of individual experiments having to be made by any river authority. The experiments have all been done. It is a question of whether their needs are such to warrant the purchase and erection of this form of apparatus. In that case, I should think the Water Resources Board was the right body to advise them. I was going to ask my noble friend to give precisely the same information as was asked for by the noble Lord opposite—whether he has the latest figures about the cost of extraction, and which cities in the world are at the moment being supplied with water from the sea.

§ EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for having ventilated this matter in Committee and for having reverted to it now, since it 916 gives me the opportunity to say that, as is often but, unfortunately, not invariably the case, there is, I believe, no real difference between the Government and the noble Lord on this matter. For our part, we agree that the desalination—I use that word with a certain amount of reluctance, as I expect it will be sat upon very sharply by my noble friend—the desalting of salt water, whether it comes from the sea or underground, as a means of augmenting water resources, is certainly a matter which ought to be within the scope of both the Water Resources Board and the river authorities. As I made clear on Second Reading and again on Committee, we agree that this is an important matter and, of course, likely to become more important in the future.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and my noble friend Lord Hawke, whether I could give any details about the economics of the various processes. It would probably be imprudent for me to venture too far into this field, and what I should like to do is to refer my noble friends to an extremely interesting study of the whole matter which the Water Research Association have initiated and a report of which they have published. This gives a very comprehensive and extensive summary of the position. Broadly speaking, I think the conclusion is that at the present time these processes are economically viable only in the rather special circumstances of a very dry place like Kuwait, which not only is extremely dry but also has extremely cheap fuel immediately available.

§ LORD HAWKE

My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Since making my few remarks I have been reminded that Guernsey has a plant of this nature, and I wondered whether he knew of the results there?

§ EARL JELLICOE

I was aware that there is a plant in Guernsey, but that, again, is a rather special case, as it is only there for the tourist overload, as it were, and not for the normal water supplies of Guernsey. I am speaking very much subject to correction, but I think the economics of the Guernsey plant run out at something like 15s. per thousand gallons, or something of that order, which is extremely high compared with the normal water supplies. I think it would be unwise of me to 917 venture too deeply into that field but I would, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, merely say that experimental work of this sort could, of course, be assisted by the Water Resources Board under Clause 82 (b) of this Bill. It would not necessarily therefore fall entirely upon the river authority, if your Lordships were to accept my noble friend's Amendment.

But, having said that, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment 115, to the Interpretation Clause of this Bill, which is Clause 117, whose beauties my noble friend has just unveiled to us. I know that probably I am trespassing and likely to be out of order in referring to that, but I hope I may be allowed to do so in the context of this Amendment, because Amendment 115 would have very much the same effect, we believe, as my noble friend's, and, since it is a Government. Amendment, he may not be altogether surprised to hear that I prefer this Amendment to his. I would also go on to say why I do not think it should be supplemented by his and why I prefer our Amendment. In the first place, it is self-supporting. My noble friend's Amendment, however, would not really stand up on its own.

§ LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Possibly I can shorten this by saying that I also prefer it. If I had to choose between the two I should choose the Government Amendment, which has a more general application. The only point I think the House need trouble him about is why we cannot have mine as well.

§ EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think there are three possibilities here: to choose the noble Lord's Amendment alone, which I think we now need not; to choose the Government's Amendment alone; or to choose a combination of the two. I would suggest that there are two reasons why the second choice—the Government Amendment alone—would be the preferable one. The first reason is that my noble friend's Amendment is less comprehensive in that it covers only seawater, and therefore is not entirely preferable to Amendment 115, which is drafted so as to embrace brackish water in estuaries and saline water in underground strata. I think 918 it is important that those two other types of salt water should be included. My second reason is that I do not think that Clause 12 (3) is really the best place to have an Amendment of that sort. That clause was drafted to lay particular emphasis on the part to be played by the Water Resources Board in assisting river authorities to get together and formulate schemes for transfer of water, and it seemed to us a duty the responsibility for which the Water Resources Board were ideally equipped to discharge.

I do not think it would be right to single out schemes for treating salt water in a similar way. It would be far better to view this matter as one of the Board's general responsibilities, and that is how it would be viewed if and when Amendment 115 is accepted—and here I come back to what my noble friend has said. He said that unless his Amendment is accepted, if I understand him aright, we should not have in Clause 12 of the Bill any reference to augmenting water resources until we came to paragraph (e). In fact, we have a previous reference in paragraph (a) subsection (3) of that clause. The augmenting which comes there would be qualified by Amendment 115, and it is our view that it would be far better if the general responsibility for considering proposals for augmenting water resources, which would embrace desalination, came right at the start rather than be singled out in a not very appropriate place in paragraph (e). In short, I would suggest that our excellent Amendment gives my noble friend all, and indeed more than, he would obtain by his otherwise admirable Amendment, and I would suggest that it would be better if our Amendment were to stand alone, when we get to it, and not be supplemented by his more limited one.

§ LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, first, may I thank my noble friend Lord Hawke for supplementing so well the case for including something on this important matter in the clause? Let me just defend my drafting a little. It was never intended to be sufficient without the Government Amendment to the Interpretation Clause. I suspected that the Government would produce an Amendment to that clause and I suspected that the Parliamentary draftsman would produce something much better 919 than I could produce. But let me say at once that, had he failed to do so, I myself should have put down an Amendment to that Interpretation Clause. But to come to the particular Amendment that I have moved, my noble friend, in his criticism of my words, omits to give any effect whatever to my concluding words, "or otherwise", which would have covered, of course, those other cases apart from sea-water, that he mentioned. Nevertheless, he is quite right in saying that his Amendment, No. 115 in the Marshalled List, gives me substantially that for which I pleaded. In these circumstances, I do not think I should detain the House by pressing this further, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I would express our very great appreciation of what the noble Earl has just said. I am sure it will give great encouragement to the whole of the amenities movement. This Amendment and the ones to which he has referred certainly carry us further than I think many of us expected he would go and they do in fact show how much we owe to him, I am sure, behind the scenes, for getting this most valuable amendment of the Bill. He has quoted a very wise remark of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who speaks with such intimate and long experience of these problems, on the importance of getting really expert advice and understanding of these problems at the earliest possible stage, and some of our Amendments which we put down on the Committee stage were directed to this particular point. I think this Amendment will certainly ensure that that is done and will enable a wise general supervision of the work of the river authorities, from the amenities point of view, to be carried through at headquarters. I do not want to take up time, but I can assure your Lordships and the noble Earl that this Amendment together with the other Amendments to which he has referred will go a great way towards meeting the points we were making and we are very thankful indeed for what he has done.

§ LORD HURCOMB

My Lords, I should also like to express my appreciation of the length to which the noble Earl has gone in meeting what I regarded as the very legitimate apprehensions of those interested in amenity in case the Bill were left as it was. It is true that I raised the point primarily in regard to the river authorities themselves. I quite recognise 922 the difficulties of adding to their numbers some members with special qualifications, and that is why I suggested that the point might be better met by dealing with the matter in the constitution of the Water Resources Board. I have an Amendment down later on dealing with a rather narrower point in regard to wild life, which I hope the noble Earl will also see his way to accept. I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has just said, that the action he has taken will give great satisfaction to all those interested in conserving the beauty of our landscape and the extent of its natural life. There are criticisms of the form of the clause which is still in the Bill as Clause 93. All it does, it is true, is to require all the authorities concerned and the Minister himself to have regard to amenity and the considerations affecting wild life. I share the views of the noble Earl that that clause has considerable value. It would indeed ill become me to criticise either the purpose of the clause or its wording, because it is substantially the clause which I induced my noble friend Lord Mills to insert in his Electricity Bill some years ago. But it is true that all it says is that regard must be had to those considerations and account taken of them.

Many people regard that as weak. Indeed they are apt to quote a story current at the time of the Electricity Bill which I believe to be well founded. It is said that the legal advisers to some of the leading authorities concerned were told that they had not the remotest reason for objecting to the clause because it did not mean a thing. I do not think that is true. I think that every time your Lordships' House and Parliament itself place an injunction upon these authorities to have regard to these matters, they do not take that as meant in a purely perfunctory sense. I will not repeat the arguments I used on Committee stage. It makes a great deal of difference to have someone inside the body itself who not only understands the issues but sees that his colleagues take them into consideration at the right stage—and the right stage is, of course, the earliest possible stage when everything is still in a formative state and plans have not been precipitated into the rigid moulds and are so difficult to alter because any modification is apt to give rise to questions of prestige and therefore becomes 923 controversial. I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the action he has now taken, which I think will have a real effect in securing a better atmosphere and will ensure that more regard is paid to those considerations than has been paid in too many planning decisions in the past.

§ EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to this Amendment.

§ LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I do not propose to twit the noble Earl or the wording of his Amendment, because I am grateful to him for having produced an Amendment at all which goes some way to meeting my point. I do not regard this as a major Amendment. I cannot imagine for one moment that, when I get home this weekend the bands will be playing, that the harps will be plucked or that choirs will sing. Nevertheless, I regard this exercise as having some importance for Wales, particularly having regard to the special position of Wales in relation to water. I thank the noble Earl for having placed this Amendment on the Marshalled List.

§ LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment arises from an undertaking I gave to my noble friend Lord Grenfell on the Committee stage. Normally a 925 period of 20 years will be required in respect of making forward surveys of water resources and water supply; but we do need flexibility so that the Water Resources Board can vary that period, if necessary or desirable. I beg to move.

§ LORD CAWLEY

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having taken so much trouble with my 926 two Amendments. I hope he will be able to find some way to meet the second one at a later date. I think it would be disastrous if the river authority should hold up the obtaining of evidence, which in these cases is needed rapidly. It may be that the river authority would not hold another meeting for another fortnight, in which event there would be delay in granting authority. I think it is essential that the necessary authority should be given quickly.