HC Deb 17 July 1973 vol 860 cc430-7

Lords Amendment: No. 76, after Clause 23, in page 30, line 33, at end insert new Clause A:

"A.—(1) The Thames Water Authority shall, after consulting the interested bodies, submit to the Secretary of State not later than 1st April 1975 proposals for the transfer to the Greater London Council of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses and land to which this section applies and, subject to subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order give effect to the proposals, either as submitted to him or with modifications.

(2) The Secretary of State may himself at any time after consulting the interested bodies amend or revoke an order under subsection (1) above or, where any such order has been revoked, provide for the transfer of all or any of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses or land to which this section applies to the Greater London Council.

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is desirable to make an order under subsection (I) above giving effect to any proposals with modifications which appear to him to be substantial, he shall direct the Thames Water Authority, after consulting the interested bodies, to reconsider the proposals and submit revised proposals to him under that subsection within a time specified in the direction, but the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to an order under this subsection giving effect to the revised proposals.

(4) While any recreation and amenity functions are exercisable by the Greater London Council by virtue of an order under this section, section 22(3A) above shall have effect as if references therein to water authorities included references to the Greater London Council.

(5) In this section "the interested bodies" means—

  1. (a) the Water Space Amenity Commission;
  2. (b) the Greater London Council;
  3. (c) in the case of proposals made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, the Thames Water Authority and in any case any other water authority whose recreation and amenity functions will be affected by these proposals in question;
  4. (d) the Port of London Authority;
  5. (e) the Common Council of the City of London;
  6. (f) the London Boroughs Association;
  7. (g) such other bodies representing persons interested in the use of the watercourses and land to which this section applies as 431 the Thames Water Authority consider desirable or the Secretary of State directs in the case of proposals submitted to him and as he considers desirable in the case of his own proposals.

(6) In this section "recreation and amenity functions" means, in relation to any authority, the authority's functions under section 20 above and, so far as relating to those functions, their functions under sections 21 and 23 above, not being in any case functions with respect to navigation conferred by or under any enactment.

(7) The watercourses to which this section applies are—

  1. (a) so much of the River Thames as lies within Greater London;
  2. (b) every watercourse, other than the River Thames, which is for the time being a main metropolitan watercourse within the meaning of Schedule 14 to the London Government Act 1963;
  3. (c) so much of the River Beam, the River Ingrebourne and the River Roding as lies within Greater London; and
  4. (d) so much of any other watercourse situated wholly or partly within, or adjoining the boundary of, Greater London as lies within the flow and reflow of the tides of the River Thames;
and the land to which this section applies is any land associated with any watercourse to which this section applies.

(8) Without prejudice to any power exercisable by virtue of section 31 below, an order under this section may contain such transitional, incidental, supplementary or consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.

(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is an important amendment. It fulfils an undertaking during Committee stage. Its effect is to require a water authority, in carrying out its duties under Clause 23, to have regard to local plans, and it deals specifically with the Thames Water Authority. The commitment which I gave in Committee arose from the discussion we had and followed representations from the Greater London Council in respect of the Thames.

Essentially, what is to happen under the amendment is that the new Thames Water Authority will be required to enter discussions with the Greater London Council, with the London boroughs and with the Port of London Authority with a view to making a scheme for sensible development of recreation and amenity in respect of the River Thames where it passes through the Greater London area.

Following consultations which these various bodies are having and will continue to have, they will put forward this scheme to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who, after appropriate consultations, will be able to confirm it by order under the Bill.

Mr. Spearing

I know that the hour is late, but, as the Under-Secretary has said, this is an important amendment, and while the hour is late and there are not many hon. Members here, particularly at this stage, because of various public events, and the feeling that the ability of the House to deal with some of these matters should be put to the test, on this issue there is some justification for speaking. I hope that the House will bear with me a little because it is so, and this has to be put on record.

This arose out of the difficult position of the Government in Committee in March last when they made what appeared to be a concession. A clause was to have appeared on Report, but it was not ready then and was introduced in the House of Lords.

The understanding of the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) is rather different from the form we have. He said in Committee: My interpretation is that the GLC will have executive powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 1st March 1973, c. 182.] Looking at the terms of the undertaking, it is clear that the undertaking was rather wider in inference than is the power in the clause. The Government managed to survive in Committee because of the so-called concession, which, as I have pointed out, did not amount to much anyway.

The clause seems very long for what is necessary. It illustrates the difficulty of the dodge that the Government got up to, but there are aspects of it that ought to be discussed because in future when there is a water boom in London, as I am sure there will be, the clause will be looked at closely and it may be the cause of some local controversy. In Britain's capital city, whose major natural feature is the Thames, the clause will be of vital importance.

Whilst the Thames Water Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State a proposal not later than 1st April 1975, it is not a duty on the Secretary of State to make such an order. The clause says that he may do so. It may be a drafting point, but "may" rather than "shall" weakens the force of the new clause because, as the statute may be after receiving the Royal Assent, the Minister need not necessarily do anything. I know that that appears to be a technicality but it is unfortunate, in view of the concession, that that situation could arise.

Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for the transfer of all or any of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses or land to which this section applies to the Greater London Council. I understand that there has been some correspondence between certain noble Lords and noble Ladies on this matter, and the clarification that was required was in respect of the Thames above Teddington where it is non-tidal and where the present recreation and navigation authority will be transferred to the Thames Water Authority.

It was suggested in one of these letters—I do not think that I am allowed to quote completely—that the reason for the insertion of "all or any" was that there was a different situation above and below Teddington Lock. Of course there is in respect of the flow of the tide, and it is true that navigation above Teddington is, alas, concerned almost solely with recreation.

The letter from a noble Lady tends to justify this "all or any", but the navigation function of the new Thames Water Authority will be largely a question of licensing craft and the control of navigation in respect of regattas, and so on. As I understand it, if the GLC does not have responsibility under the order that is made it will be denied the recreational function of the Thames Water Authority, which in my submission is not exactly the same as the navigational one. If the GLC is denied those recreational powers it may be—I do not know whether this is a fact but it could be—debarred from having financial powers in respect of recreation.

The Minister knows that some of the controversy in Committee was over the financial powers of regional water authorities in respect of recreation. If the river above Teddington does not become the responsibility of the GLC, from the recreation point of view it will not have the financial power that is concerned particularly with landings, boathouses and land immediately adjacent to the river. I hope that when the Minister looks at the application from the Thames Water Authority he will ensure that the difficulty which the Government appear to see in this situation is covered. This is a technical point, but it is a matter of some relevance to those who use the river.

My second point on the clause is one of rather more procedural substance, but it is important. When we came to the Report stage and there was no clause to fulfil the undertaking given in Committee, it so happened that in expectation of there being a clause of this sort I tabled another new clause that would have set up a statutory body, or enabled the GLC to set up a statutory Thames River Advisory Committee, that would have enabled it to have a statutory body to advise it on the functions that it is to have under the new clause. In my haste to save the time of the House it may be that I did not make it clear to the Under-Secretary then that my new clause proposing an advisory council, on which users would be represented and which would have statutory powers to advise the GLC, was in no way a substitute for the clause that the Government were expecting to table. It was additional to that.

I tried to make the case for the new clause, as reported in HANSARD for 1st May at columns 1032–34, but in replying the Under-Secretary made no mention of the new clause except to say that it had the support of some hon. Members. When I asked whether, in expectation of a new clause in another place, the Under-Secretary accepted it as an auxiliary clause, he made no reply. He said that it had been left in the air and that what happened with the new clause was a matter for me.

I am approaching the end of what 1 realise is a rather longer intervention than is customary in these debates. However, in terms of ordinary politeness, that was not a polite thing. It was a slight on the powers of an ordinary Member of the House. It is not easy for a backbench Member to get a new clause selected for debate on the Floor of the House at the Report stage of a major Bill such as this. That is what I managed to achieve. Although quite lengthy, that clause would have enabled the GLC to set up an advisory committee to help it discharge the powers proposed in the amendment.

The Under-Secretary may have said that the GLC did not want it. But it is not entirely a matter for the GLC. It is a matter for the House to say whether or not the GLC shall have this power.

In an age when participation and open government are all the rage, particularly from the Government's point of view, there is no reason why that new clause could not have been accepted. The Under-Secretary gave no reasons. He almost refused to discuss that clause. At the time, my hon. Friends thought that the Under-Secretary was accepting the spirit of that clause. They did not distinguish sufficiently between the clause to be moved in another place, now before us, and my additional clause, which would have been a valuable auxiliary to it.

This was badly needed. However, because of that action a valuable new piece of machinery for London, which would have achieved the very thing that the Under-Secretary wanted to do—the effective development of water space in the complex area of the tidal Thames—has been made impossible. In this respect, the reputation of the House in its concern about the beauty and the enhancement of the River Thames in London has suffered.

Mr. Denis Howell

I wish to make some brief comments to supplement what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). My hon. Friend will recall that the cause of our concern in Committee was the fundamentally undemocratic nature and lack of accountability of most water authorities compared with, for example, the Greater London Council. It was very much our case that the GLC was plainly a regional organisation and authority in its own right, directly elected by the people, and that it should, therefore, have control over the River Thames and all recreation and amenities on the river.

I said then that it was unthinkable that the GLC should be divorced from control over the river in any water reorganisation plan. That point of view was not acceptable to the Government. After a great deal of concern had been expressed on both sides of the Committee, the Government came forward with the proposal that is now before us.

We do not like it. I suppose that from the Government's viewpoint it makes the best of a bad job. If we are not to have direct accountability in the GLC, this could be said to be the next best thing.

The Opposition believe that the GLC case was made. If there is any further reorganisation, we shall have to give our attention to this matter.

11.15 p.m.

It is surprising that Ministers have left regional sports councils out of the organisations which the Thames Water Authority will have to consult under the clause. Under subsection (5) (g) there is an obligation to consult such other bodies representing persons interested in the use of watercourses and land to which this section applies as the Thames Water Authority consider desirable". That is unsatisfactory.

We hope that on matters of sport and recreation the Thames Water Authority will regard it as desirable to consult the regional sports organisations. There are two affecting the Thames; namely, the London and South-East Regional Sports Council and the Southern Regional Sports Council. They should have been written in as of right.

At this late stage I would be satisfied if the Minister would undertake that those bodies will be consulted or that he will express a wish to the Thames Water Authority that it be consulted on any question which arises which may affect regional sports policy or planning.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I readily give the assurance that it would be reasonable in all the circumstances that the sports councils should be consulted. In so far as the Water Space Amenity Commission is required to be consulted, that of itself guarantees that the sports council interests will be considered. because the amenity commission will contain representation from the sports councils.

We have gone further than the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) originally suggested. We are not putting up some advisory body for London. We are transferring the executive functions in respect of recreation and amenity on the London river to the Greater London Council, and that fulfils completely the undertaking I gave.

As the amendment stands and as I hope the House will accept it, it leaves open the question whether the power should be extended above Teddington Lock. We are not excluding that. This is a matter which will require a good deal of consideration. Before any order is made it will be thought about very carefully.

Mr. Spearing

I fear that I did not speak for sufficiently long. The Under-Secretary has either misunderstood or I have not made it clear. The new clause which I moved on Report was entirely auxiliary to the clause we are considering now. It was in no way an alternative. Of course this clause goes further than mine, but mine was auxiliary to this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the point, because I think he understands it. The alternative is not pleasant.

Question put and agreed to.

Forward to