WATER (Hansard, 22 October 1973)

§ Mr. Younger
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to make South Kincardineshire an "added area" of the Tayside region for water supply purposes. The Government announcement in March 1972 on water reorganisation included Kincardineshire among the areas with special difficulties which it was proposed to meet by "added area" arrangements; South Kincardineshire was to be added to Tayside for water supply. There were, however, 901 strong representations against this from Members of Parliament, the North-East of Scotland Water Board and other authorities in the North East, and I met a deputation from the North-East Board about it.
After considering all the arguments, it was finally decided to reverse the decision previously announced and to provide that South Kincardineshire should be part of the Grampian region, which would be free to make arrangements with the Tayside region for a bulk supply of water for South Kincardineshire. As introduced, therefore, the Bill did not include provision for a South Kincardine added area.
For South Kincardine, either an "added area" arrangement or a bulk supply would be practicable, but Ministers considered the balance of advantage to lie in following the principle of having a single local authority in control of all the infrastructure services including water supply. The East of Scotland Water Board objected to the Government's change of view and on 1st February I told a deputation from the board that their points would all be most carefully considered, although the outcome would depend in some measure on developments in Parliament on the Bill, particularly as regards the future of Fife. Lord Hughes made his amendment in the Lords and it was passed without any discussion.
There is force in the arguments on both sides, but although either a bulk supply or an added area arrangement is praticable in this case, in the Government's view the balance of advantage lies in following the principle laid down by the Wheatley Commission and accepted by the Government as the basis of their proposals for local government reform, that a single local authority should have control over all infrastructure services including water supply. The East of Scotland Board's views have to be taken into account as well as those of the North-East of Scotland Board, and both points of view carry some weight.
There is a matter of very difficult judgment here and, as one can see, we have indeed had great difficulty in coming to a decision. However, we feel firmly that the right decision is not as 902 proposed in this amendment and that we should go back to the Bill as it left the Commons. I therefore ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)
I moved the original amendment which found endorsement in the Lords. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it was not without discussion. It was discussed, admittedly at a rather late hour, in the Lords and as a result the amendment was made to the Bill at that stage without a Division under the rather different procedures of the other place, as I understand it.
I have always felt basically that this dilemma stems from what I have always regarded as a mistaken decision to deviate from the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission on the definition of the Tayside area, but that is a long way past.
The Government have never convincingly argued why we should in this case—and I think it is the only significant case—vary from the principle of source-to-tap supply in a single water board area. I was not convinced by my hon. Friend's arguments in Committee, and I cannot pretend that they sound any more convincing on second hearing. I have checked with the East of Scotland Water Board today, and it is quite unmoved in its conviction that the Bill was far better as it emerged from the Lords than it would be if the course recommended by my hon. Friend were followed.
I believe that the citizens of South Kincardineshire will come to regret the decision which the House is asked to take on their behalf tonight, because they will be reliant on a water supply from an area within which they are not represented and whose essential responsibilities are other than those of assuring the water supplies for that area. I do not see any prospect that the Grampian area will be capable of assuming responsibility for that water supply in the foreseeable future.
But I accept that this is one of those cases in which perhaps we must try to see how matters work out. I believe that if we accept the Government's recommendation we shall have made a wrong decision, but I do not wish further to delay our proceedings or to divide the House against that decision.

§ Mr. Robert Hughes
I believe that it was as long ago as 18th July that the other place made the amendment. Whenever it was, the East of Scotland Water Board immediately represented to me that their lordships were mistaken, and that the view it had successfully put to the Minister earlier was correct. I am grateful to the Government for putting down the motion to disagree with their lordships, and I have great pleasure in supporting them.