§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 3 to 7.
§ No. 26, in page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (6).
§ No. 31, in page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (7)
§ Mr. PageThose two amendments are consequential.
Under Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State is empowered to make an order making
such provision authorised by this section as appears to him to be expedient".As we know from the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State can exercise that power only on application from the water authority concerned. The authorised provisions appear in subsection (3). Amendment No. 1 is to paragraph (b), which says that one of the authorised provisions can be'provision authorising the authority to prohibit or limit the use of water for any purpose specified in the order".But it then goes on to say that the purpose must be one of those prescribed in the direction of the Secretary of State.The Minister for Planning and Local Government said on Second Reading that that phrase did not mean what it said. It is rather an unfortunate phrase here. The right hon. Gentleman said that what he meant by it was "designated" rather than "directed". This is not the first time that I have, kindly and amicably, accused the right hon. Gentleman of being a 2242 Humpty Dumpty—not from a physical point of view: I am sure that he would have it back on me if I were to say that. But it was Humpty Dumpty who said, in a scornful tone,
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean.In this subsection we take the words "prescribed…in a direction" to mean "designated".There is no legal force in the direction. Thus, there is no question of the water authorities having to obey that direction. All it means is that the intention is that the Secretary of State sets out a list of items which can, if a water authority asks, be included—I suppose either the whole lot or any one item—in an order giving authority to the water authority to apply prohibition of that sort.
On Second Reading—col. 1746, 4th August—the Minister gave a little list of those items which he had in mind to prescribe as part of this direction. These are to be the designated items and it is those from which the water authorities, I understand, can select when they apply for an order in their favour.
For the general public, this is the guts of the Bill. The public want to know what can be prohibited and what can be prescribed in this list. I am not happy about the fact that paragraph (b), in describing this list, says that it shall consist of the items which are
for the time being prescribed".I presume from this that it may be what the Secretary of State thinks up in his 5 in. of water in the bath in the morning and that it may be altered from time to time. This is not very satisfactory.First, may I deal with the procedural point? It is a very unusual procedure. It provides that when it is eventually made the order must make a selection from the list. That order will have, I presume, to recite the direction in order to show that it is valid, because the order will beultra vires if it goes outside that list. I think I am interpreting the paragraph clearly.
In another capacity I have the honour of being the Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee, and I can imagine one of these orders coming before it. The question we should have to ask would be 2243 whether it is in accordance with paragraph (b), and in order to find whether it is we should require to see the direction and require to see that the order is selecting an item out of that direction. It is a very difficult procedure to follow and will give rise to problems on the question of thevires of the order.
When I first read this I objected to these words on the ground that they seemed to give much too extensive powers to the Secretary of State. But, having heard the explanation and the reasons for it in the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading, I have come to the conclusion that the real objection is not necessarily that it is giving too wide powers to the Secretary of State. The real objection is, first, that the subsection in question does not say what the Minister means, and in that sense it is bad and misleading; secondly, it is too restrictive in advance of the functions of the water authorities.
Only those items which appear in the list can be asked for in the application by a water authority for an order. May I take a humorous and extreme example. Let us suppose the list says—as we are told it will—that racecourses must not be watered with hosepipes and various other things, as described, and that a sprinkler must not be used, and it is then found that all the stable lads come out every half hour with buckets of water. I imagine that on receiving an application from Newmarket, or somewhere else, we should need to look at the direction. We should then find that we could not make an order about buckets of water but could make an order only about hosepipes and sprinklers not being used.
The list as given by the right hon. Gentleman—and this is a serious matter—does not include anything about industrial concerns, or even commercial concerns. There might be a factory producing Coca-Cola, and it might be considered unnecessary that it should wash all its bottles every day. I understand that an excessive amount of water is used in bottle-washing, whether they are Coca-Cola or beer bottles. There is nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's list which could cover this sort of thing or, indeed, commercial matters. If the many thousands of young ladies employed by Littlewood's Pools were using a great deal of water as a result of washing their hands four or five times a 2244 day, and one wished to restrict that, nothing in the right hon. Gentleman's list would enable that to be done.
I suggest that there will be problems arising from the words in paragraph (b), and that it would probably be better to give the list in a circular, rather than in the Bill. Then it could be altered from time to time without creating any difficulties with orders following from it. In the orders given to the water authorities specific mention should be made of those items that can be prohibited and then those orders should, as we shall come to on a later amendment, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 31 follow from the amendment to which I have been addressing my remarks so far, because they seek to leave out some subsections that are necessary only because of this paragraph (b) in subsection (3). When one looks at subsection (6), which is one of those to be left out by Amendment No. 26, one sees the difficulties that arise from this rather extraordinary procedure that is to be adopted by reason of subsection (3)(b).
It means that if the list is changed in these directions, the Secretary of State will be obliged to revise the orders that he has made. On many occasions I have argued that the word in a clause should be "may" and not "shall", or that it should be "shall" and not "may". But it is significant that in this subsection the Secretary of State "shall" vary an existing order so that it "shall" comply with a change in the list of items in the direction. The Secretary of State can apparently vary that order without any request from the water authority, without going back to the water authority at all, and surely that is a difficult position that arises merely from the inclusion of this system of giving directions and giving them some sort of blessing in the Bill.
Amendment No. 31 relates to the same sort of problem. The wording implies that an order that has already been made will be invalidated if the directions change and if the prohibition on which the order has been made is removed from the list of directions.
The Minister has got himself into a real tangle over this and I ask him to drop the idea of designated prescribed 2245 directions—shades of the designated relevant development of the Community Land Act! He should do it by publishing the list in a circular and he should state specifically in the orders given to the water authorities the items that they may prohibit, and allow us to have scrutiny of the orders through this House.
§ The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell)I am sure that the House wants to make rapid progress. I shall try to deal with the points made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) as rapidly as I can, because there are many other amendments to be debated and everyone wants to get the measure on to the statute book at the earliest moment.
I do not think that the right hon. Member for Crosby quite understands the way in which we intend to proceed. Some of his illusions were extremely far fetched. The idea of stable boys rushing on to the course at Newton Abbot with buckets of water so that I can visit the course next week when I am on holiday is fascinating. Stable lads look after horses, not the racecourse, but it is a relevant point and I shall return to it later, because one has to discriminate in what one does about racecourses.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ The explanation is that during the water emergency the Secretary of State will make a designation order and tell the 10 regional water authorities that if if they run into trouble they can go to him under Clause 2 for an order to take certain action in respect of the items designated by him under Clause 1. My right hon. Friend gave the House a list of the type of things that would be designated immediately the Bill is on the statute book. Sports grounds, car washes and fountains were three of the items listed.
§ I take the example of sports grounds. The Welsh Water Authority might wish to make a designation order in South Wales but not in North Wales, where there is plenty of water. It may make such order within that category. In London the water authority might want to make an order in respect of sports grounds, but under Clause 2 the Thames Water Authority could say that it did 2246 not want to stop all the watering of sports grounds. It might say that it would be happy to continue to water the wicket at the Oval, but that it did not wish to water the outfield. It would need to apply for a limited order. The Northumberland Water Authority, because it has no shortage, might not want to make an order at all.
§ We are saying that the Secretary of State will make designation orders and invite regional water authorities to apply for their own special orders in that category. But they could not go outside that. If industry is not designated, the authorities will not be able to make orders affecting industry.
§ We do not want to put restrictions on industry and agriculture unless that is essential, but if the crisis worsens, my right hon. Friend might want to make further designation orders which include industry. In that eventuality, regional water authorities could come back and apply under Clause 2 for an order.
§ The amendment deals with Clause 1 and has nothing to do with orders under Clause 2, but we must understand the Clause 2 procedures which relate to Clause 1. If we removed the words suggested by the right hon. Member for Crosby, considerable uncertainty would be created. The right hon. Gentleman was right on the ball when he said that he first thought that our wording was too wide and that now he thinks that it is probably too restrictive. That suggests that we have got it about right, which is what we aimed to do. We wish to cause as little uncertainty as possible so that the regional water authorities know the areas at which they should look in the emergency for follow-up orders. I hope that that explanation will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. Graham PageThe Minister said on several occasions that the Secretary of State would make a designation order. That is the matter which I wanted to clear up. There will not be an order as paragraph (b) stands. The directions will have no strength except that they will have to be examined when an order is made to see that they areultra vires. That is why I say that the words should be left out. The list should be published but once it is put into the Bill 2247 there will be the gravest difficulty in making an order which is within the power of the Minister. The direction will be recited at the beginning of the order. I do not see how, otherwise, one can say that the order is valid.
If these words were left out the Minister would have the same power without there being any of the confusion which will arise from these words.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 7, at end insert:
'but no such direction shall prejudice the statutory functions and duties of navigation of harbour authorities'.The use of water has always involved a clash of interests and the art of political co-ordination. In this amendment I seek to protect the use of water in respect of inland navigation and marginally where harbour authorities have that function. This subject is referred to partly in Clause 3(2). There it refers to takingwater from a source from which wateris available to inland navigation and to statutory discharges from inland navigation for other uses. I am particularly concerned with the scope of the directions which have already been referred to and which were set out in general terms by the Minister of State yesterday as reported at column 1747.From the indication given by the Minister it appears that it is not in his mind to make any directions which shall direct the use of water from inland navigations in such a way that the statutory duties of inland navigation authorities are upset. I do not refer only to the British Waterways Board because, although it is the biggest operator of the system, there are a good many independent canals and navigations such as the Upper Avon, Navigation Trust and Wey Navigation. I suspect that the Minister has no intention of making any directions that would interfere with their obligations. That is not, however, made explicit in the Bill. It would be useful if it were made explicit, if possible.
This year there has been considerable disruption of navigation on canals. That has been one of the subjects made newsworthy by the drought. The Minister 2248 will agree that canal users, the British Waterways Board in particular, have done their best to use water responsibly. They have their own sources of supply—not always adequate. I am sure that at a time of national emergency there would be full co-operation from these navigational authorities with the appropriate regional water authority over the use of these sources. I do not think that this has been necessary so far and I hope that it will not be.
I would like an assurance that the Minister does not intend to make any directions in this area and that if in extreme circumstances sonic use were to be made of the sources available to inland navigation, before the order was made there would be full consultation with the navigational authorities concerned. I hope that this amendment can be added to the Bill to make matters explicit. If it is not, I trust that the Minister will give me the assurance for which I ask.
§ Mr. Graham PageThe hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is always extremely observant of the wording of a clause and its effect. He has confirmed what I was trying to say during the course of the debate on the last amendment and which was not accepted by the Minister, namely, that nothing can be done by direction. The amendment says that
no such direction shall prejudice the statutory functions".A direction cannot do anything at all. It cannot prejudice a statutory function. It cannot alter a function.The fact that the hon. Member for Newham, South can so misinterpret this clause confirms our belief that these words will cause confusion to all who read this Bill in the future. Had he chosen the words "the order should not prejudice these statutory obligations" that would have been right. He misread the clause because it is bad and misleading, and we are told that it does not mean what it logically says.
§ Mr. Denis HowellMay I just clear up this point? I never said anything of the sort. I agree with the right hon. Member that nothing could be done by direction itself. The direction indicates the areas in which the regional water authorities can come forward to apply for 2249 an order. I agree with him in his interpretation and I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding between us on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) moved this amendmnt in the form of a probing amendment. The direction cannot prejudice the functions of the statutory duties. The order may do so subsequently, but the direction itself cannot do so. I am told by my legal advisers that the wording he has suggested is, technically, defective. If it means anything at all, it means that the direction of the Secretary of State would be renderd invalid or unworkable, and I am sure he would not want that situation to occur. The direction will comprise a list of non-essential uses, and it cannot possibly prejudice the carrying out of any functions and duties.
I can assure my hon. Friend that as far as the British Waterways Board is concerned, Ministers will have a proper regard for its obligations. They will not seek to do anything by way of direction or subsequent orders which will impinge unreasonably on the board's obligations. Naturally, officials of my Department are in touch with officials of the board and the fears my hon. Friend has are not justified.
Frankly I do not understand his inclusion of harbour and navigation authorities in the wording of the amendment but in so far as there is any doubt about this matter I can give a similar assurance to that which I gave in respect of the British Waterways Board. Having given that undertaking, I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that his point has been met.
§ Mr. SpearingI am grateful for that assurance. I apologise for any misunderstanding I may have had, but, as I said yesterday, this is a technically complicated Bill.
The purpose of including navigational and harbour authorities is that in some circumstances harbour authorities are responsible for navigation in impounded waters upstream.
In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2250§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 28, after 'authority', insert:
'subject to any conditions specified in the order'.
§ Mr. JonesThe amendment refers to subsection (3)(f) dealing with the protection of water supply consequent upon the discharge of sewage or trade effluent, mainly into water courses from which supplies may eventually be drawn or the protection of the standard of those water courses. The regional water authorities are responsible for taking the necessary steps to these ends. They are responsible for the standard of sewage effluents and the acceptance into water courses of trade effluents and for setting standards. To some extent they have a joint responsibility—the acceptance of these effluents and the maintenance of the standards of water courses.
If the subsection is left as it stands, the authorities are acting as judge and jury in their own case. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to be responsible for giving the necessary authority for the discharge, and his approval is required in terms of the order which needs to be laid. The amendment seeks to require that any conditions laid down by the Secretary of State shall be specified in the order. At present this is omitted from the Bill but there is adequate justification for including wording to this effect.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has added his name to Amendment No. 4, which has the same effect as Amendment No. 3, and we welcome his recognition of the need for some specification in the order.
§ Mr. Denis HowellThe hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) has made a convincing case and we entirely agree with him. However, we prefer the words to which my right hon. Friend has added his name. This point his been represented to us by the CBI amongst other organisations, and we accept it.
We do not think that it is necessary to write into the Bill a provision enabling the Minister to attach conditions to orders because we think that it is already there. 2251 In subsection (3) provision is made to include supplementary provisions in orders. Schedule 1(3)(4) deals with the same point. Therefore the conditions are there. But orders which are made for variation or suspension of consents to discharge sewage or trade effluents should specify the consent or consents to which they refer. Amendment No. 4 probably does that rather better than Amendment No. 3, and therefore I hope that the Committee will agree not to proceed with Amendment No. 3 but to accept Amendment No. 4.
§ Mr. Graham PageAmendments Nos. 3 and 4 deal with entirely different matters. Amendment No. 3 seeks to put in an order any conditions which the Secretary of State wishes to impose on a suspension or variation of consent. Amendment No. 4 deals with the specifying of the consent itself, and we accept that this should go into the order.
The Minister said that Amendment No. 3 was not necessary because of provisions already in the Bill. Clause 1(3)(c) provides that the Minister may lay down conditions if a water authority suspends or modifies any restriction or obligation. The fact that this provision is omitted from Clause 1(3)(f) would, in my opinion, lead the courts to interpret the intention as being that the water authorities should be entitled to attach conditions without restriction from the Minister.
The Secretary of State may wish to say that a consent should not be granted unless the authority or person concerned is prepared to provide an alternative method of disposal. It would not do any harm if the words in Amendment No. 3 were included so that the same provision applied to paragraph (f) as applied to paragraph (e).
§ Mr. Denis HowellIn reply to that typical point from the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), I can say that Amendment No. 3 is unnecessary because Amendment No. 4 substantially meets the basic point. I agree that the amendments are different but their objective is the same—that an order seeking to effect consents for such discharges has to specify the individual consents. There will be no blanket power. I think that that is the assurance wanted by the House.
2252 I also drew attention earlier to the detailed conditions provision for which is already contained in two places in the clause. We have met the basic point being put by the right hon. Member for Crosby. I hope that he will be content with Amendment No. 4.
§ Mr. Arthur JonesI was interested to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) about what he sees as the conflicting objectives of Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The words at the end of Clause 1(3) are general and apply to all the lettered subsections.
My interpretation was that the purpose which we were seeking was met by Amendment No. 4, which is our words to which the Minister has put his name. It would be discourteous of us not to recognise the joint objectives of the Government and the Opposition on this new requirement which is placed upon the Secretary of State. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 29, after 'consent', insert 'specified in the order'.—[Mr. John Silkin.]
§ Mr. Arthur JonesI beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 40 to 42.
This amendment relates to subsection (4) which refers to the classification of the consumer.
The subsection provides:
where the order specifies a class of consumer it may authorise the authority to apply the prohibition or limitation to any particular consumer within that class.I do not think that we have discussed the classification of consumers. I think of it in terms of perhaps agriculture as a whole or one particular section of an industry. These words give authority for the prohibition or limitationto any particular consumer within that class.Taking the analogy of agriculture, am I right in thinking that if, regrettably, only limited water supplies are available to agriculture, it will be possible to allow irrigation for specified crops or for certain agricultural facilities? This raises a significant issue. It has given particular and positive control to the regional water authorities under the authority 2253 granted to them and confirmed by the Secretary of State.May we have some reasons for the necessity for a very narrow control of water supplies for particular uses? How can we be sure that people will not be singled out unfairly or discriminatorily? Wide responsibilities will rest on the Secretary of State, who will be concerned with scrupulously interpreting his powers fairly. Will there be any means by which a consumer may appeal against the Secretary of State's decision?
We are using this amendment to probe these questions. I have no doubt that there is wide recognition of their importance and a need for the Draconian measures of the Bill. I hope that we shall be given a further and better explanation of the importance of these three lines.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Graham PageI support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones). Subsection (4) empowers a water authority to pick out one consumer if the order is a class order. If the Secretary of State made an order stating that a water authority may apply prohibition to a class, as I read subsection (4) the water authority would be entitled to pick out a particular consumer. That is a nice phrase. It sounds like a dainty eater.
If there were a prohibition on the use of baths in dwelling-houses, the water authority could pick out Mr. Bloggins down the road because he had so many baths. If there were a prohibition on restaurants, the authority could pick out Joe's transport café down the road. I am taking extreme examples, but that is the only way in which we can try to interpret how these measures will work.
It is not clear whether in the order the Secretary of State must specify the consumer or whether the water authority is given power to select individual consumers and to put a prohibition on only one.
If someone is to be picked out as a person on whom prohibition should be imposed to the exclusion of all others, that should be mentioned specifically so that we know what is happening. At 2254 the moment, a water authority has power to make its own selection.
§ Mr. Denis HowellThe hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) are right. This is what I call the discrimination clause. It gives regional water authorities and my right hon. Friend power to discriminate not against but in favour of people.
I do not think that the far-fetched allusion suggested by the right hon. Member for Crosby of picking out Mr. Bloggins is likely to be carried out by regional water authorities, even though the right hon. Gentleman set them all up. I have criticised them from time to time, but I do not think that they would behave in such an unreasonable manner.
I think that the hon. Member for Daventry was much nearer to the point when he took his agricultural illustration. This meets a point which the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) has rightly put to us on two or three occasions.
I should like to go back to my cricketing allusion to explain this matter. If my right hon. Friend were to issue a direction covering all sports grounds—I will deal with the position in London —unless there were power to discriminate within that class, he would not discriminate in favour of Lords and the Oval or any other ground in respect of repairing the wicket so that people could play on it next year. Therefore, we must have positive power to discriminate.
Putting it another way, if an order were made covering all parks in London, unless we could discriminate to exempt the Oval and Lords from that general order, it would apply to all public parks, including these highly specialised sports grounds. In short, there is a need for flexibility.
I do not think that water authorities will behave irrationally or unreasonably. We wish to retain this wording in the Bill for the reasons that I have given. We need to be able to discriminate positively for sensible reasons. Therefore, we need the greatest degree of flexibility.
§ Mr. Arthur JonesCould the right hon. Gentleman give an example applying to agriculture or to industry? That is where the greatest interest will lie.
§ Mr.HowellI am not as well versed in agriculture and industry as I am in sport, which is why I prefer to rely on my sporting knowledge. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can find many examples within industry. To take a bottle-wasting example, in an acute emergency it may become necessary to make a direction regarding the cleansing of vessels, and so on. I do not think that I could agree that Coca Cola should be stopped from washing its bottles, as my family drink gallons of the stuff. Obviously, it might be necessary to exempt Coca Cola from a general direction. On the other hand, people might think that it was better that Courage should be exempt, or something of that sort. It is flexibility of that sort, within an industry, which would follow. However, I assure the House that people would act reasonably responsibly.
The Bill will come into operation when the House is in recess. If there are difficulties in the early days, it is likely to be when the House is in recess. Therefore, hon. Members will not have the opportunity to raise matters challenge Ministers about what they are doing when the House it sitting. To meet that point, my right hon. Friend and I give an unqualified undertaking that we will at any time meet Members who wish to take up with us, in this emergency situation, any matters which need attention and which they cannot raise in this Chamber. I am sure that that undertaking will be accepted and regarded as reasonable in the circumstances.
§ Mr. Graham PageI thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for that undertaking. However, he is, in a very practical way, reading into the Bill something that is not there at all. He said that what the subsection means is that the water authorities will have power to exempt certain people when they have a class order. It does not say that in the subsection at all. It says
authorise the authority to apply the prohibition or limitation to any particular consumer.It is "to apply the prohibition", and not to relieve anyone.If that is what it was intended to do, I wish that it had been written into the 2256 subsection. It is most misleading to anyone who tries to interpret it, if we have to rely upon the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation. Reasonable and very practical as that may be, it is not in the Bill.
§ Mr. Arthur JonesI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance he has given. However, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in what he has said. The analogy that the right hon. Gentleman gave about the cricket square at Lords is not a reflection of the wording in the Bill. What the subsection says is
apply the prohibition or limitation to any particular consumerI do not know who owns Lords, or one of the other cricket pitches, but it will not be possible, in these terms, to say "You may water the cricket square but not the outfield." I do not think that the powers extend that far. If one allows Lords to water, I should think that it would be entitled to water the square and the outfield as well. I realise the difficulties of interpretation. The Minister for Planning and Local Government may say that it is quite easy, but I do not think that his right hon. Friend is finding it terribly easy, although perhaps he is doing very well but could do better.I should like to suggest a way in which the Minister may consider doing better. Perhaps we could have some examples to help industry and agriculture, by way of a Press release, for instance, or something of that sort. That would be most helpful not only for regional water authorities but for those who will be at the receiving end, or otherwise, of this legislation. The facts will be important to them. It would be helpful if the Government could make further and better particulars available.
§ Mr. Denis HowellOn behalf of my right hon. Friend I am quite happy to say that as an order is made we shall undertake to do what we have just been asked to do and to make available as much information as possible about examples.
I intend to do better, because it occurred to me half way through the hon. Gentleman's speech, when he asked 2257 who owned Lords, that Lords is owned by the members of the Marylebone Cricket Club, and as I happen to be one of them I ought to declare an interest in the matter. Perhaps I can do that retrospectively.
§ Mr. Arthur JonesI am grateful to both right hon. Gentlemen for their assurances, in the light of which I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'section' to 'shall ' in line 46.
This is a technical amendment which we have included upon advice to clear up Clause 1(3)(b). The amendment clarifies 2258 the intention to confirm the right of water authorities to levy any water rate or minimum charge not only where they are relieved of an obligation in relation to the supply of water by them but also where they are authorised to prohibit or limit the use of such water. It has always been the declared intention of Ministers that in neither case should there be an abatement of charges, but there was some doubt whether the clause as drafted achieved the desired effect. The amendment does so.
We covered this ground yesterday in the Second Reading debate when the principle of the amendment was discussed. I hope that it will be acceptable.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part or the Bill.