LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD (Hansard, 17 March 1965)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish)
I beg to move, That the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board (New Functions of River Authorities) Order 1965, dated 1st March, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved. I must begin by reminding the House of the background to the Order. The Water Resources Act, 1963, established 27 river authorities to carry out water conservation functions conferred by the Act over the whole of England and Wales, except the Thames catchment area, the Lee catchment area and the London excluded area. They were set up by Order on 15th October, the first appointed day, and take on their full functions on 1st April, the second appointed day.
These authorities will also exercise the functions—fisheries, land drainage and prevention of pollution—formerly exercised by river boards, which will cease to exist on 1st April.
The Act offered the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Agriculture two courses for the Thames and Lee catchment areas and the London excluded area. The Ministers could have designated these as river authority areas under Section 10 and established ordinary river authorities in those areas. As an alternative, they are given power, by making an Order under Section 125 jointly with the Minister of Transport, to confer on the Conservators of the River Thames and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board within their catchment areas all or any of the new water resources functions of a river authority. Section 125 also empowers the three Ministers to include in their Orders provisions altering the constitutions of the Conservancy and the Catchment Board … in such manner as the Ministers may consider necessary or expedient. 1427 Throughout the Parliamentary proceedings on the Act, it was made clear by Ministers that the intention was to take the second of these courses and to confer on the Thames Conservancy and the Lee Catchment Board all the new water resources functions of a river authority in their catchment areas. It was stressed that the constitutions of both authorities would need to be altered to take account of their extended range of functions and that their existing local enactments would need to be reviewed. I should emphasise that this course was accepted by both sides of the House.
In the Thames catchment area, the Thames Conservancy was given the new water conservation functions by Order last July, and at the same time reconstituted so that, as with river authorities, a bare majority of members are from the local authorities on whom the Conservancy precepts—the county councils and the county borough and London borough councils. An amending Order, taken in the House last week, adds a Greater London Council member and a balancing Ministerial appointment of a member with a good knowledge of the fisheries' interests. The Thames Conservancy, in a separate Order, was given control in the London excluded area of abstraction from underground strata.
The general effect of the Order now before the House on the constitution of the Catchment Board is very similar to what was done with the Thames Conservancy. The new constitution will be closely comparable with that of a river authority, though without the fisheries functions that river authorities will inherit from the dying river boards.
In contrast with almost all the river boards, the effect is to increase the number of members on the Catchment Board. This is the result of altering the constitution so as to provide for members from the backgrounds listed in Section 6(3) of the Act which are not already represented—industry, agriculture and fisheries. The Lee Conservancy Catchment Board, unlike river boards, already has representatives of public water supply, in the shape of members nominated by the Metropolitan Water Board.
At present, there are 21 members, of whom only one is appointed by the Minister and 20 by local authorities of one class or another, including two by the 1428 Metropolitan Water Board. Under the Order, the overall size will be increased to 25, of whom 13 will be appointed by the councils of counties, London Boroughs, Luton County Borough and Greater London. The other 12 are to be appointed by Ministers.
We are quite satisfied that it is right to model the proposed constitution on those for the river authorities. The Catchment Board is being given extensive new powers for the management and control of water resources. The Lee catchment occupies an important place in the future development of water supplies in south-east England. This is an area where population increase and industrial expansion are bound to continue, for some time at least. London itself will continue to rely on the River Lee for one-sixth or so of its supplies.
All this must be brought about with full regard to other interests in the river, not least the navigation. It is surely right that the authority charged with these responsibilities should be similar in shape to river authorities with corresponding responsibilities elsewhere. No doubt it is proper that local authorities should continue to be in a majority, but the size of that majority needs to be cut in order to allow the voice of those directly interested in the conservation and use of water to be effectively heard.
So far as Ministerial members are concerned, the Order differs from the present constitution in this way: land drainage membership is up from one to two; public water supply membership is up from two to four; agriculture is on for the first time, with two representatives; and industry is on for the first time, with two representatives.
Given the scale of land drainage representation in other river authority areas, two members for the Lee Catchment is appropriate and so is the allowance of two members for agriculture, bearing in mind the large horticultural interests in the Lee Valley. The total number of public water supply members is increased and, as the Metropolitan Water Board has the major interest, three of the four ministerial appointments are to be made from among its nominees. This arrangement is similar to that on the Thames Conservancy, though the numbers are, of course, different.
1429 Before the Order was made, all the local authorities concerned, all the associations of interested bodies, as well as the Metropolitan Water Board, the British Waterways Board and, of course, the Catchment Board itself were consulted. The most important of the representations which were made concerned the place of the British Waterways Board, which is the navigation authority for the part of the Lee between Hertford and the Thames which is known as the Lee Navigation.
The difficulty about applying these arrangements to the Lee is that it is a complex mixture of artificial and natural waterways. At the same time, the Metropolitan Water Board relies heavily on the Lee for its supplies and has a long established right to take all the water in the river after given quantities have been left for navigation, and it pays the British Waterways Board a sum, at present more than £40,000 a year, in recognition of that Board's work in enlarging and maintaining the capacity of the Lee.
The M.W.B. argued that it was in a special position and that if it ever came to apply for further abstractions from the river, it should be entitled to go direct to the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and not have to apply to the Waterways Board. Its present right to take all residual water from the river will be changed under the Water Resources Act into a licence for specified quantities. Thus, if the flow in the river is increased by any means the Metropolitain Water Board may later wish to abstract increased quantities. At present, there is no additional water in the river for anyone to apply for.
After considering the Metropolitan Water Board's representations—and I received a deputation from the Board myself—we were able to accept that it was fair that an exception should be made for it and that it should be able to apply direct to the Catchment Board. This arrangement is acceptable to the British Waterways Board and is secured by paragraph 3(1, t) of the Order.
The Metropolitan Water Board also makes payments to the Catchment Board in recognition of its care for the quality of the water in the river. The Order does not make any alteration in the 1430 present arrangements by which payments pass between the three Boards. The Ministers and the three Boards are all agreed that during the next three years, until a charging scheme under the Act comes into effect, there will be a review of the financial arrangements between the three bodies, and, subsequent to that, provision for long term arrangements under the Water Resources Act will be made in a supplementary order.
The other representations made about the Order were all about the provisions made for membership. The Metropolitan Water Board argued that it should have the right to nominate three and not two of the four public water supply representatives to be appointed by the Minister, and we accepted that, as it takes so much more water from the Lee Valley than all the other public water undertakers, this was right.
We also agreed with the Greater London Council that it should be represented in view of its interest in regional development in the Lee Valley. This created a vacancy for an additional ministerial appointment and provided a welcome opportunity to appoint someone experienced in fisheries. But we were not able to agree with the few local authorities who objected to the proposed distribution of seats. Membership was calculated on exactly the same basis as for river authorities except for the seat for the Greater London Council which I have already mentioned. Essex, on a strictly arithmetical basis, is not entitled to a member to itself, but, comparing the counties with the county and London boroughs a fair distribution is clearly three for the counties and nine for the county boroughs. A joint appointment for Essex and Bedfordshire is not an acceptable proposition, for the two counties have nothing in common and no common boundary.
The industrial representative bodies were also dissatisfied with the proposed two members, but we have carefully compared the Lee area with the area of the river authorities, and after weighing up the importance of the various interests in the area we are satisfied that two is a reasonable number.
It is something of a relief to end by getting away from these detailed points and going back to the heart of the matter. 1431 The Catchment Board, in its present shape, has done splendid work, as all of those of us who are Londoners have special reason to know. The duties now placed on the reconstituted Board are, if anything, more important and more complex than those which it has already. This Order is the last stage in the system of water conservation that is coming into being on 1st April, a system on which, in a very large measure, the prosperity and healthy growth of the nation depends. It only remains for me to wish the new Catchment Board and the river authorities well and to stand aside and let them get on with their work

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I am sure that the House is very grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation—not an easy explanation—which he has given of a very difficult Order to read. One has to have the Act alongside one to understand what the Order means. I will put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest at once and say that I do not intend to criticise the Order in any detail, or, in fact, at all

§ Mr. Mellish
Or to ask questions

§ Mr. Page
Or even to ask questions.
As I understand it, the Order creates an authority in the form in which it was laid down in the Water Resources Act, 1963, subject to exceptions, and subject to the great difficulty which the hon. 1432 Gentleman has had in getting the constitution of the Board right. The membership has increased, we are told, from 21 to 25. All those members come on the Board because they represent a particular interest.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have struck the right balance between those interests. But I hope that now that the Board has been formed it will not continue to be a board of individuals representing separate interests, but that it will be able to act as a board, despite its size, and get the work done, because there is a great deal to be done in carrying out the work of this new conservancy Board.
I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is satisfied that consultation has taken place with all the interests concerned, and that, although he has not been able to reconcile all those interests, he has struck the best balance that he can. It has obviously been a very difficult undertaking.
The 27 other river authorities in the country start to operate on 1st April, 1965. I assume that it is the intention to bring this Order into operation on the same date, 1st April 1965?

§ Mr. Mellish
Yes, it will come into operation on that date