ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF WATER AUTHORITIES (Hansard, 17 July 1973)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill specifies that at least two-thirds of the members of any committee of a water authority appointed under Clause 6(6) must be members of the authority, although the remainder can be co-opted from elsewhere. The same rule is not applied at present to subcommittees. It seems desirable that it should be so applied to ensure that there is sufficient cohesion and integration in the administrative and committee structure of the water authority. It would be wrong for the water authorities to delegate their functions to a sub-committee if it consisted of a majority, or a totality, of members who were not members of the authority.
If the water authorities were to set up executive sub-committees composed substantially or predominantly of co-opted members there would be a real risk that there would be too diffuse an administrative structure, which would militate strongly against achieving the comprehensive management of water resources which is the object of the reorganisation. Since we have made the provision about committees, this amendment applies it to sub-committees.

§ Mr. Oakes
I question why it was in the first place that the Government included this proviso "other than a subcommittee" in the clause. My fear is that it may well be that a water authority may wish to have a sub-committee for part of its duties, for example sewerage and drainage functions. I am not talking about agency agreements. It may be that the water authority might decide that the most appropriate sub-committee to deal with the functions would be composed very largely of local authority representatives who had the experience and expertise.
By insisting that two-thirds of the members of a sub-committee shall be members of the regional water authority, are we excluding a water authority in its own right from creating a subcommittee which would be composed largely of local government people? Is this a further erosion of the power of the regional water authority?

§ Mr. Page
The hon. Member has put his finger on the point. It would, in my view, be wrong for a water authority to delegate its executive functions to a subcommittee which could, as the Bill stands, consist wholly of the members of a local authority. If it is intended to delegate those executive functions in that way there is provision elsewhere for the proper sort of agreement to be made, but not by way of a sub-committee which does not consist of a substantial majority of the authority.
We want to create in the authorities a governing body and not-except by the methods set down in the Bill-to delegate its functions to other bodies outside its control.