Clause 8.—(CONSTITUTION OF WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.) (Hansard, 25 April 1967)

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 8.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 6, to leave out 'A water development board' and to insert: 'The Central Board shall consist of such number of members being not less than seven and not more than fourteen, as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and any other water development board established under this Act', and Amendment No. 9, line 13, to leave out from the second 'be' to the end of line 14 and to insert: 'two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board where he is satisfied that the greater number is necessary in view of special circumstances relating to that board or their region'.

§ Dr. Mabon
In discussing Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together, it seems that we have reached a rather interesting situation, almost doing a minuet of argument. In Committee, the Opposition's intention was to have a water development board of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 members. It was part of my argument, since we were to have discussions with the regions and take their advice, that we might even be able to provide for equity of representation. The regions are different in population, in rateable value and in their uptake of water from the Loch Turret scheme, which exists, and the Loch Lomond scheme which will be developed shortly. 1386 Since there are these differences between the regions on those three scores, we thought that it might be desirable to have equity of representation, and I even hinted that we might be able to get seven members from the seven regions. I thought it unwise, therefore, to make the Amendment which the Opposition suggested at that time.
Influenced, no doubt, by the force of my argument on that occasion, the Opposition have taken me at my word and put down Amendment No. 7 providing for not less than seven and not more than 14 members. I should explain that, in the interval, we have had discussions with several of the regional boards. The Government accept that it is asking too much to expect the regions, particularly those which draw a large amount of water and have large populations, to have fewer than two members. Our Amendment No. 9, therefore, proposes that there should be two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board". We have proposed two because of the general view in the meetings which we have had with the proposed regional bodies, and we have taken account also of a representation made to us that there may be a case for a region having more than two members. I do not expect this to be four. I expect it to be three. There is a specific ground for this suggestion, and we are still discussing the question with the regional bodies concerned.
There is an argument that we should give one extra on grounds of population. This was put to me on Friday at the meeting with the British Waterworks Association, when, in answer to some questions which I put, it was said that there might be a case for extending the number to, say, four for the lower Clyde region, three for the South-East region, and two for the others. Somebody came up with the argument that there should be one member for those regions which do not take water.
There are other permutations based on the three criteria of rateable value, uptake of water and population. But the Government are satisfied that, at the present stage of our deliberations, it would be wise to speak of two members for the regions or such greater number as 1387 might be specified, on the understanding—we do not put it in the Statute—that we do not expect to appoint more than three for any one region, and we may not even wish to do that.
This is the Government's intention, but, as I say, it is very much open to debate. I explained this on Friday, saying that the Secretary of State is anxious to get the proper consensus of opinion. My feeling about the Amendment now, however, is that we should let it stand as it is in the present state of our deliberations. I may be wrong, and the Government are very much open to argument on it. The Opposition have been very fair in their approach. They will now see that we have come round to their view as a consequence of our deliberations. I only ask them to accept our present intention and support the Amendment.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I am in some difficulty here because the Minister of State has been jumping about like a cricket. He has said so much that it is difficult to know whether to agree or disagree. On balance, I am inclined to agree, and I say that because the hon. Gentleman has now accepted the main point of our argument in Committee, which was that it would not be reasonable to leave the composition of the central board in the air, as would happen if the Bill remained as it stood. We are precise in the Bill about the composition of the regional boards. It seems right, therefore, to be reasonably precise about the composition of the Central Board.
In Committee, we proposed that the Central Board should consist of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 members. This view was opposed by the hon. Gentleman at the time, though he undertook to look at the matter again. This he has done, coming forward with an Amendment now which honours his undertaking. In fact, he has come very much towards the Amendment which we proposed in Committee. What a lot of time and trouble he would have saved had he accepted that Amendment in the first place.
We listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with respect when we discussed the matter in Committee—we always listen to him with respect, though not 1388 always with agreement—and, as he pointed out just now, our Amendment shows that we had a lot of sympathy with what he then said. We consider, as he did then, that it is right for the Central Board to have a small rather than a large membership. Equally, we strongly believe that the Central Board not only should have representation from the regional boards within the Central Board's area but should have special regard to those regional boards which cover vast areas of the country and some of the remoter glens with particular problems to which special expression should be given on the Central Board. The hon. Gentleman smiles at what I say. He probably remembers that my own home is in one of the remote glens, and I have a particular interest in the remoter areas, as he has, too.
I do not insist on our Amendment No. 7. I think that the Government Amendment meets the point fairly well. I am a little worried that it may go even further than we ourselves originally proposed. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has taken the point. He interprets it fairly reasonably in his Amendment No. 9, and I hope that in the operation of the Clause as amended, the remoter areas will have proper and reasonable representation on the Central Board.