Lords Sitting of 20 December 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS
2.34 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what number of slaughterhouses are not equipped with the stunning pen, and what number are; and what is the percentage of cattle slaughtered in the United Kingdom by the use of this method; and further to what extent the regulations, requiring that animals should not be slaughtered in sight of others, are being complied with.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, in England and Wales about 2,050 slaughterhouses are required to be equipped with stunning pens for adult cattle; of the balance of about 580 premises, some are already so equipped; and the range of compulsion is being steadily extended as Appointed Day Orders are made under the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1958. I estimate that two-thirds of the cattle slaughtered pass through stunning pens. I have no reason to believe that the regulations requiring that animals should not be slaughtered in the sight of others awaiting slaughter, are not being complied with; they apply by now in the great majority of slaughterhouses, and very few animals are now slaughtered in sight of others.
In Scotland, 17 slaughterhouses have stunning pens and 103 have not; but the 17 deal with half the cattle slaughtered. No animals are allowed to be slaughtered in sight of others. The responsibility for these matters in Northern Ireland lies with the Northern Ireland Government,
1234
but I am informed that 12 slaughterhouses have stunning pens and 6 have not. Eighty-seven per cent. of the cattle pass through stunning pens, and the Northern Ireland Government are satisfied that no animals are slaughtered in sight of other animals.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Will he agree—I am sure he will—Chat we have a great deal of way to go in England and Wales in the provision of this very humane method of slaughter? May I ask the Government whether they will accept that it would be the will of this House and, as I believe, of the country that greater efforts be made to effect these improvements An slaughterhouses?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am quite sure that the House will -agree, as indeed I do myself. I think that perhaps I was a little over-scrupulous in the figures I gave the noble Lord because I referred to 580 that did not have to have stunning pens on the grounds that Appointed Day Orders had not been made. Of those 580, some already have stunning pens despite the fact that it is not yet obligatory; also, of those 580, 200 will have to have stunning pens by the end of this year—that is, in ten days or so.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's original reply that there are 2,050 slaughterhouses still in existence and being operated?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The noble Lord is quite correct: 2,050 in England and Wales.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Will the noble Lord tell us how many were in operation during the course of the war? Was it not somewhere between 700 and 800?
LORD ST. OSWALD: If the noble Lord could persuade himself that that point was within the scope of the Question, I should like to hear his argument.
LORD STONHAM: But, my Lords, did the noble Lord not say in his original Answer that there were 2,050 slaughterhouses which had arrangements for stunning?
LORD ST. OSWALD: Yes, that is quite true.
LORD STONHAM: But my noble friend asked a different question. He asked whether 2,050 was the total number of slaughterhouses, and that obviously is not correct. What is the total number?
LORD ST. OSWALD: The number is 2,050 plus 580.

CHANNEL BRIDGE OR TUNNEL
2.37 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the document entitled Channel Bridge or Channel Tunnel? submitted on December 5 to the Minister of Transport by the Road Federation, the Road Haulage Association, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the R.A.C., the A.A. and the R.S.A.C., with which the British Iron and Steel Federation subsequently associated itself, and whether they are now prepared to give an assurance that no final decision as regards a Bridge or a Tunnel will be taken until Parliament has had an opportunity of considering and debating the Report of the Anglo-French Committee of Experts which, it would seem, is to be expected shortly.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, the document has been considered by my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and the views it contains will be taken fully into account by Her Majesty's Government when officials submit their conclusions jointly to the French and British Governments. I can make no firm statement at this stage on when this will be, or on what procedure it will then seem right to adopt, though the Government will certainly bear in mind the wish of Parliament to be fully informed. The question of publication will be a matter for consultation between my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and his French colleague in the first instance.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will not the noble Lord or the Government urge on their French colleagues the desirability of publishing the report of the experts? If it is not published, obviously Parliament will not be able to pronounce on the pros and cons of this extremely important project; they will not be able to know what the facts are unless this document is published. Therefore, I do hope that the Government will at least explain to their French colleagues the extreme desirability of publishing the report, and I trust that the noble Lord will bring this to the attention of his right honourable friend.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the words of the noble Lord will be borne in mind when discussions take place between my right honourable friend and his French colleague.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government under the impression that either they or the French Government would have any right to build permanent obstructions on the High Seas even if they wished to do so?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, that is one of the matters that is at present engaging a good deal of attention.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that, not-withstanding what my noble friend Lord Conesford has just said, plans for the bridge, although they were produced late in the day, are gaining a great deal of support from influential sections in this country?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as with the document referred to, so I do here.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, should I be right in assuming that the Government are fully aware of the large volume of opinion in the country which is against the project?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think the Government are not left in much doubt as to opinions which are held by various sections of the community.
LORD REA: My Lords, are the Government aware of the large volume of opinion in the country which is in favour of the proposal?
LORD CHESHAM: The answer to that is precisely the same.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would my noble friend remember, too, that the Parliamentary Committee, which consists of about 200 Members of both Houses, is in favour of a tunnel and not a bridge?
LORD CHESHAM: The answer is the same again, my Lords.

COMMON MARKET AND CHANNEL LINK
2.40 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that it would be highly undesirable to reach any final decision as regards the nature of a permanent Channel Link until it is apparent whether or not the United Kingdom is to become a member of the European Economic Community.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, a decision on whether a fixed Link should be provided, or on its nature, Will depend on many factors. It would be unwise to predict at this stage what weight should attach to any single one of them. But I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government, for their part, when the time comes for a decision, will take account of the probable future growth of cross-Channel traffic and all the various factors affecting it, including the United Kingdom's relationship to the European Economic Community.
LORD GLADWYN: But, my Lords, surely the Government appreciate the fact that, if we go into the Common Market, not only will the traffic across the Channel increase materially but it will also be possible to place the whole scheme for the bridge under the aegis of the Commission in Brussels, and thus transfer it from a purely Anglo-French affair into a great Community project?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not think I can add to what I have said, except to say that the considerations which are envisaged by our joining the
1238
Common Market are certainly one of the things being taken into consideration.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, in view of the last question, may I ask the noble Lord which way the traffic will increase—to or from?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that is a question that requires further official study.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Have not the British Government already had such experience of pressure groups that they ought always to be aware of them?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Yes, my Lords, even if they come from the Opposition Front Bench.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN COLONIAL PRISONS
2.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have now ascertained in what Colonies corporal punishment is a penalty for prison offences other than violence, and whether the prison regulations in such Colonies will be brought into line with the new practice in Aden.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, yes. In nine dependent territories corporal punishment is awarded for offences other than violence. Of these, six are at present considering whether amending legislation should be enacted to bring them into line with the new practice in Aden. In other cases where the Secretary of State still retains the necessary constitutional powers he will ask the Governors concerned to seek alteration of the rules and regulations as may be required.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Duke, in reply to a supplementary question, give the names of the

1239
Colonies in which corporal punishment is administered for offences other than violence?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Nine territories: Bahamas, Barbados, Bechuanaland, Fiji, Nyasaland, the Virgin Islands, Kenya, Gambia and Swaziland.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, could the noble Duke tell us what the offences are for which corporal punishment is administered in cases other than violence?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It is a very considerable list. It includes a wide variety of subjects such as gross insubordination, escaping or attempting to escape from lawful custody, chronic laziness and repeatedly refusing to obey lawful orders. It is a wide range.
LORD SHEPHERD: Can the noble Duke say whether it is a fact that in these territories corporal punishment can be awarded by the prison governor, without perhaps magistrates being called in to award the punishment?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I must be frank. I am not sure of the detailed procedure under which it can be enacted, but I will gladly write to the noble Lord about these detailed points.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION EXCHANGES
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask a question of which I have given Private Notice: Whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table a full account of the confidential and hitherto unpublished exchanges concerning Central Africa?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount, but my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State is, I believe, likely to reply to a similar Private Notice Question in another place, and therefore I should like to postpone the Answer in this House, if your Lordships are agreeable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on sport, and my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire will be making a statement on Brunei at suitable moments after 3.30.

BRITISH TRANSPORT REORGANI SATION (COMPENSATION TO EMPLOYEES) REGULATIONS 1962
2.43 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I very briefly explain the purport of these Regulations? As you know, under the Transport Act, 1962, the British Transport Commission's undertaking is to be divided between the British Railways Board, the London Transport Board, the British Transport Docks Board, the British Waterways Board and the Transport Holding Company. My right honourable friend has now made an Order—The Transport Act 1962 (Vesting Date) Order 1962—which will effect the transfer from the Commission to these five new statutory bodies on January 1, 1963. Under Section 81 of the Act, my right honourable friend must make regulations to require the Boards and the Holding Company to pay compensation—and I quote from the Act:
"to persons who are at the passing of this Act officers or servants of the Commission and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, or whose position is worsened, in consequence of the reorganisation effected by this Act".
It is therefore in discharge of this duty that these draft Regulations have been laid in this House and in another place, and I am now asking your Lordships to approve them.
I should like to point out to your Lord-ships that these draft Regulations provide terms which are in some respects better than those given in previous statutory re-organisations in the nationalised transport industry. They have been modified only in minor respects to bring them into line with current practice in the other nationalised industries. In their preparation there has been full consultation with the Trades Union Congress and 21 unions involved. I think I may claim

1241
that they go as far as is reasonably possible to meet cases of hardship arising in organisations affected by the Act and, accordingly, I ask the House to approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the British Transport Reorganisation (Compensation to Employees) Regulations 1962, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Order and regard the arrangements as quite satisfactory. I do not think the noble Lord mentioned the number of persons likely to be in need of these regulations for compensation. I understand that it is quite a small number—probably a good deal less than 50—but perhaps he could confirm that, so that we may know the number of people likely to be affected. One other point: the noble Lord made it clear that there have been adequate consultations with the trade unions concerned—some 21 trade unions—but, of course, this referred only to the new main bodies to be set up under the Transport Act. He will be aware that there are subsidiary or ancillary organisations, some of whose employees may be affected, and I should be very glad if he could give us an assurance that there will be consultation with the trade unions in respect of those employees, so that we can be sure that heir interests also will be covered.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is right regarding the number of people. It is extremely difficult to be specific in anticipation of what it may be, but I understand it is generally thought the number concerned will be nearer 10 than 50. As regards the subsidiaries, their employees are, of course, left out under this Act. The noble Lord will appreciate that. The terms of the Act which I read out confine the compensation provisions to employees of the actual British Transport Commission and do not apply to subsidiaries. On that point we had a great deal of discussion, of which the main point was that the subsidiaries are not affected, as such, because their employees are transferred in bulk, with pay and working conditions and everything. As the noble Lord says (and I have just confirmed this) the employees of the subsidiaries are debarred, as it were, from this consideration under the Act. But if, in what I regard as
1242
the very unlikely event of the circumstances being as the noble Lord suggested—that an employee of the subsidiaries should be affected in this way—my right honourable friend would be prepared to receive representations about it from the unions; and if it seemed appropriate, he would pass them on to the Board concerned.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Schedule 1 [River Authorities]:
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to leave out the reference to the proposed new Mersey and Weaver River Authority and to insert instead:

"Mersey River Authority

The Mersey River Board Area

Cheshire River Authority

The Cheshire River Board Area"

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Before I come to it, however, I should like to say a sentence or two in respect to some remarks which I made when this Bill was last in Committee. I had endeavoured to argue that in my judgment the river boards which were being amalgamated had not been treated fairly; that they would be put on the defensive. I went on to say that Amendment after Amendment would be "shot down", and when a noble Lord's Amendment had been defeated or withdrawn he would cease to have any compelling interest in any further Amendment. That was all that I implied in my speech, neither more nor less. I am aware that every Amendment must be considered and determined on its merits.
As I have previously indicated, the river boards which are being amalgamated feel that they are being

1243
eliminated, perhaps somewhat ruthlessly eliminated, and have been denied the advantages of a public inquiry, at which all the facts for and against amalgamation could be brought out. This is the final opportunity which they have of having their case made public. Therefore, I offer no apology in this instance in dealing with the position of the Cheshire River Board, which, under the new set-up, is to disappear. The objections to the provisions of the Bill which propose the amalgamation of the area of the Cheshire Rover Board with that of the Mersey River Board, to form a new body, to be called the Mersey and Weaver River Authority, are on two grounds. First, there is no real affinity of interests between the two areas and that the local Cheshire agricultural interests would be subordinated to the other interests of the new authority. Secondly, the existing Cheshire River Board area is sufficiently large and has the necessary financial resources to justify its forming the area of a separate river authority.
At the present time, the Cheshire River Board has a total area of 469,760 acres and the mileage of the main river is 290. The Mersey River Board has a total area of 661,607 acres and the mileage of main river is 379. The area of the Cheshire River Board is predominantly agricultural, with large land drainage interests, whereas the area of the Mersey River Board, whilst agricultural to some extent, has within it twelve large industrial county boroughs; and obviously the industrial interests predominate. The Cheshire River Board submit that there is no real affinity of interests between the two areas and believe that, having regard to the provisions of Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill, the Cheshire interests would have only a small representation on the new authority and that there is a very real danger that the agricultural interests of Cheshire, which in the nation's interest should be protected, would be subordinated to the other interests of the authority.
It appears likely that an authority of the size proposed would have at least 31 members, of whom, under Clause 7 (2) of the Bill, 16 would be appointed by the county councils and county boroughs within the area, having regard to the appropriate penny rate product for the
1244
area of each council. It seems likely that, if only 16 are to be appointed, three would be appointed from the present Cheshire River Board area—namely, representatives of Cheshire County Council and the county boroughs of Birkenhead and Wallasey—and the other 13 would be appointed from the present Mersey River Board area—namely, representatives of the Lancashire and Derbyshire County Councils and of the county boroughs of Bolton, Bootle, Bury, Liverpool, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, St. Helen's, Salford, Stockport and Warrington. The Cheshire River Board believe that this very limited representation would be most unsatisfactory so far as the very wide interests of the inhabitants of the present area of the Board are concerned.
The next point is the viability of the Cheshire River Board as a separate river authority. As I have already indicated, it is believed that the present area of the Board is sufficiently large to remain as the area of a separate river authority. Quite apart from existing problems in the Cheshire River Board area in relation to land drainage and pollution, great possibilities exist for the exploitation of underground water in the bunter sandstone and of water in the Rivers Weaver and Dane for water conservation purposes. There is ample scope for research in the development of the hydro-logical potentialities of the area. The investigation of these problems may well involve considerable expansion of the Board's existing technical staff. The Cheshire River Board are quite satisfied that they have the necessary financial resources to carry out this work as a separate authority, and draw attention to the fact that under the proposals of the Bill there will be ten new river authorities with the same area as the existing river boards and with rateable values lower than that of the Cheshire River Board area, which is £9,298,976. I will not enumerate the names of those boards, but they vary from £9,100,630 to £1,769,770, and £2,833,246. I think I have said enough to show your Lord-ships that an area like Cheshire, with its mainly agricultural interests and with only two county boroughs within its area, has a quite reasonable and logical case for your Lordships to consider amending the Schedule in their

1245
favour and allowing the present arrangement to stand—namely, a separate area for the Cheshire River Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I rise to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I sit with the noble Lord on the Central Association of River Boards, and I dislike finding myself in opposition to him. I have an Amendment down later on, but for the immediate purpose of the waters that flow into the Mersey, involving two river board areas, I have to state that I wish to see the amalgamation of those two areas, and believe that it should be done, particularly having regard to what is enunciated in the White Paper about the desirability of having wider views, planning views going beyond those which we had as members of river boards. Believing that, and having read the subject up, I believe not only that you must amalgamate these two river board areas, but that you must go further. While still, as committees, administrating the matters of the plains, you must be able to send your delegates to the central rendezvous where hill projects and upland waters to be conserved will be discussed by the representatives sent up from these erstwhile river boards. I am now speaking against what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said, but it seems to me that later on I shall have to move a proper Amendment, such as is down. The prospect raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, of three councillors being held down by thirteen councillors is very frightening; but, of course, it need not happen, although it was his business, supporting Cheshire, to say so.
I want to give your Lordships a little background as to why I am on my feet at all. My mother's home was just South of Manchester. I have hunted in Cheshire; I have stayed in Cheshire, and I fought a political contest for Altrincham. in Cheshire. And my right honourable friend Mr. Enroll wrote to me the other day and said: "I am glad to hear that you stood for Altrincham four years before I was born". So I think I may say that I can talk for Cheshire. As your Lordships know, there is a great range of hills, the Pennines,
1246
running down to Derby and Stoke-on-Trent. Water engineers, professors and such-like, have pointed out that those lands have not been fully developed. Professor S. Gregory said in 1958 that the area has been only 80 per cent. explored. Therefore, such areas in the Derbyshire hills will have to be investigated. At present they throw waters North, South, East and West, contributing to the waters that eventually go into the Dee and the Mersey; and they do that because of the network of canals which have intake points in some of the Derbyshire hills and were made gathering grounds for the inauguration of the great canal system by the man who was the cousin of my ancestor the Duke of Bridgwater. He had those ideas of using water to take loads of coal. These Derbyshire hills, with their intakes, send the waters down in their canals to add to the waters in the rivers. Some of these canals are not viable to-day, because they are too narrow.
I spoke the other day about the diarchy which needs to be resolved by co-operation, and that is the diarchy arising from the fact that another department of State, the Transport Ministry's British Waterways, are in possession of water in our river authority's territory. We shall need help in seeking out new uses for canals at present not used, or not used to their limits, so that the waters in them are not wasted. In the dry year of 1934–35 there was in storage in those canals 800 million gallons of water; and because in that year the canals were under their own administration that water could not be used to help relieve the shortage of water in the countryside. That will show your Lordships how necessary it is to get co-operation in respect of all gathering grounds and all water in order to relieve the necessities of our country.
I thank your Lordships for allowing me to say that much. I shall have to refer to this matter again later. Before I sit down there is something that I forgot to mention and should like to add. Just before I came here, I had a letter from the Mersey River Board who wished me to say, on. their behalf, that they did not see anything but advantageous results for the general public from an amalgamation of their Board and the Cheshire Board. They feel quite sure that, since the bank on one side of

1247
the Mersey is run now by the Cheshire River Board and that on the other side by the Mersey River Board, it would be far better if the whole estuary were run by an amalgamated authority.
3.10 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Albemarle for intervening so helpfully to the case that I have to make myself. I should like to say in opening to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, that his initial references to some remarks he made on Wednesday were certainly not misunderstood on the Bench behind me and, indeed, we took notice of what he said and respected his point of view. We could not, of course, agree that river boards were not treated fairly in that they were denied the advantage of a public inquiry. They had the advantage of being invited to come to London, which some of them took and others did not, to speak to the Ministry and, of course, they had the advantage, as in this case, of having their particular issue debated in this House in Committee and, if necessary, at a later stage in another place. There is, of course, very decidedly no apology required from the noble Lord for raising this particular individual river board matter here to-day.
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment, as he has made very plain, would be to continue the present areas of the Mersey river board and the Cheshire river board as the areas of separate river authorities. Opposition to the amalgamation comes only from the Cheshire River Board. The Mersey Board, while they did not, I understand, actively seek the amalgamation, are prepared to accept it and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Albemarle, they do in fact actively approve it and promise their full assistance in smoothing the transition to the new arrangements. We expect to obtain two particular advantages from the amalgamation of the Cheshire River Board area with another. First, those living in the area will obtain a unit of more appropriate size for water conservation purposes. It has of course been said again and again that a size which is convenient and efficient for river board purposes frequently will not necessarily, in our view, be suitable for the wider functions of the river
1248
authorities. In this case they will obtain, in our view, a unit of more appropriate size.
The area of the Cheshire board is only 730 square miles, or thereabouts—I think that was among the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Burden—and is perhaps only half the size which, other things being equal, would be acceptable as a minimum area for water conservation purposes. It is clear—that is to say, in our view it is clear—that for the future on the water conservation side it would not justify a water conservation organisation of its own. An association with the Mersey river board area would provide a unit sufficiently large from the conservation point of view. Further, the amalgamation with the Mersey area will bring all the tributaries of the Mersey within the area of a single river authority. It is true that for many years past—since the catchment boards were set up under the Land Drainage Act, 1930—the waters draining from the South to the tidal Mersey, and those draining to the non-tidal Mersey, have been separately and efficiently administered. None the less, to bring these streams into a single area and under unified management will afford positive advantages in relation to prevention of pollution and to general management of the rivers for water conservation purposes which the Bill will require of the new authority. At the same time, we are satisfied that there need be no detriment to the services of land drainage and fisheries administration in such an amalgamation.
Thirdly, this amalgamation will have the effect of putting together two areas in which the aspect presented by water conservation problems is similar. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, disagrees, and I respect his disagreement. The noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, I thought most learnedly agreed—learned to a technical pitch to which I cannot follow him myself. Neither of these areas can be characterised as a water-producing area on a large scale. The principal internal task to be attempted by the new river authority will be that of enabling more use to be made of local resources by combating pollution, and by schemes of artificial recharge to boost the quantities of water now available—that is to say, to pump water down a borehole into the porous rock below.

1249
This rock is the bunter sandstone mentioned by the noble Lord, which has some reserves of water. These are being depleted, and they can be recharged from the Dee. They will offer a natural form of water conservation without any very complicated or expensive works.
Neither part of this area would, in fact, be the scene of spectacular works of impounding or regulating the rivers. It would be a matter of less publicly evident importance, but of quite considerable scope and benefit for all that. One might describe it rather as a series of operations of purifying and conserving. The area has its conservation problems and its conservation opportunities. There are substantial and increasing industrial demands for water, a field for useful experimentation and development in the artificial recharge of the water-bearing bunter sandstone, all of which can best be dealt with, we are convinced, under an authority of greater size and strength than would be sustained by the Cheshire River Board area alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, spoke with great sincerity and understanding on the agricultural points and, of course, the agricultural argument is one with which, in any case, both as an individual and in my office I am bound to sympathise. But our problem is to consider carefully and to weigh up the arguments on either side, to reach the answer, and to secure that it should be the right answer. True enough, amalgamation of the Cheshire and Mersey areas associates a predominantly agricultural area with one in which the agricultural interest is noticeably proportionately less. But there is no evidence, and certainly no complaint, that under the present dispensation farming interests in the Mersey board area have received less than their requirements in land drainage services. While there are these large cities and boroughs which the noble Lord enumerated, there are also in the present Mersey area large important areas of agricultural land, including the Cheshire Plain. Consequently, the experience of land drainage and agricultural problems will not come as something new to the more populated area now involved in this amalgamation. And we are satisfied that the constitutional arrangements for the river authorities will mean the securing of a proper voice for the various
1250
interests affected by the activities and functions of an authority administering such an amalgamated area.
The noble Lord did not suggest (but it has, I believe, been suggested by others) that an alternative amalgamation with the Dee and Clwyd area might have been preferable; but there is, in fact, no desire in the Dee and the Clwyd area for an amalgamation. We had, of course, to turn our eyes in that direction among others, and we had to pay attention to Welsh feeding. Even if Welsh feeling were not opposed to this, amalgamation with the Mersey area would not secure the unifying management of the Mersey tributaries, to which my noble friend Lord Albemarle has referred, under the water conservation authority best suited to tackling the work required in the Mersey basin. Nor would it give the satisfactory pattern of water conservation units in Northern England which we believe is achieved by our proposals. It would not fit in to that carefully thought out pattern. I have done my best to persuade the noble Lord that we have considered all the factors which he has considered, and I hope that I may have persuaded him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I agree that the doubts I expressed as to the future of the Cheshire area are speculative, and the views which the Minister has expressed as to the benefits of the amalgamation are also speculative. No one knows what the future will hold. I do not know what to say to the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle. He, like me, has the honour of being one of the vice-presidents, and an active vice-president, of the River Boards' Association. Quite wisely, the River Boards' Association has kept outside the controversy in regard to the areas of the amalgamation, and so on. I can only hope that when the Cheshire River Boards' Association representatives attend the last meeting of the River Boards' Association the noble Earl will be able to find appropriate words to say goodbye to them, after his intervention this afternoon. I prefer, in all the circumstances, that this Amendment should be negatived on the lines of previous Amendments rather than withdrawn, for, after all, neither the Government nor I can really foresee what the future holds for us.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether enough water has now flowed under the bridge to enable us to resume, but, if so, I would beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

SPORT
3.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I gather that it would be convenient if I dealt first with what I understand is an Answer to a Written Question in the House of Commons about sport. I myself will make virtually the same Answer orally to this House.
This important subject has, as the House knows, been considered by a Committee set up by the Central Council of Physical Recreation under the chairmanship of Sir John Wolfenden. My Lords, when on May 8 my right honourable and learned friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in another place the willingness of the Government to approve substantial increases in local authority and educational capital expenditure on recreational projects, he added that the Governmnt were studying this Report and that its suggestions on organisation required further thought.
In the meantime considerable progress has been made with the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. On capital account—and this is the most important aspect, from the financial point of view—publicly financed work on facilities provided exclusively for sport has risen from £3·6 million in 1960–61 to £9 million in the year 1962–63. In addition, capital expenditure on sporting facilities in connection with education will amount to about £18 million in the current year, and growing provision is made by industry and commerce for their employees. On the recurrent side, the annual grants to voluntary bodies, such as the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association and the Scottish Council of Physical Recreation, have more than doubled since 1959 and now total £366,000.
1252
These large and mounting expenditures are, however, contained in many different programmes for which responsibility is distributed between my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The Wolfenden Committee were, in the Government's view, right in drawing attention to the fact that this is a subject which cuts across the normal division of ministerial responsibility.
This is not a matter than can be solved, in the Government's view, by creating another agency that would be interposed between the responsible Ministers and local authorities. Schools and their playing fields must be planned together; local authorities must be in a position to plan their priorities. The Government, therefore, while agreeing with the diagnosis of the Wolfenden Report, do not agree with the remedy it proposes of establishing a Sports Development Council. Co-ordination is, of course, required in the development of sporting and recreational facilities in the various programmes so that we can get the best value out of them. My Lords, in my capacity as Lord President of the Council, I have now been given special responsibility for ensuring this. I shall have access to expert advice from both outside and inside the Government service, including, of course, the voluntary organisations concerned with various games and sports. That is the Answer.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, might I surprise the Lord President of the Council first of all by paying him two compliments? Is he aware that the sports organisations and certainly I myself imagine that he will be as disappointed with this statement as we are? And, secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware that we are delighted that he has been entrusted with this task, because those of us who came into contact with him in his all too short period as Minister of Education were only sorry when he left that Department? We know how interested he is in these matters.
Having said those nice things may I just come on to something else? May I ask your Lordships, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to realise that the governing bodies of sport

1253
do not look upon setting up a Sports Development Council as
"creating another agency that would be interposed between the responsible Ministers and local authorities"?
Is the Lord President of the Council aware that we really look upon a Sports Development Council as something which would be able, without in any way impinging on the autonomy of governing bodies of sport or on the work of voluntary bodies assisting sport, to coordinate the efforts for sport in the community on such matters as facilities, general inquiries and medical and scientific problems related to sport? Knowing the Lord President as we do, may we assume that he Chas not got a closed mind on these matters and that we may wait on him in the hope of talking to him about them in due course?
LORD REA: My Lords, I very much agree with much of What the noble Baroness has said, but it seems that this is a most complicated subject that needs a lot of co-ordination all round. I think, on the whole, that it is better there should not be another body coordinating so long as we have such a responsible and sympathetic Minister as the present Lord President—and I hope his successors will be the same—in this field.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the very kind things they have said about me personally, which I hope I shall deserve. Of course this question of organisation is one which is open to a good deal of argument on both sides. What is more important than the question of organisation are the questions of policy posed by the Wolfenden Report. It is precisely those issues of policy that I shall try to evaluate and, if need be, get through in one way or the other when I take up my duties, which I am now presumably free to do. My mind is more likely to be empty than closed on this vast field, and I certainly should not like to prevent the noble Baroness from coming to see me at any time.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while welcoming the fact that the noble Viscount will pay special attention to this important aspect of our life, may I ask him whether he will also pay attention to the difficulties of sport in the
1254
rural areas—not so much sport as games, which I presume is largely what is meant by sport in this context—particularly in mid-Wales and, I presume, some parts of Scotland and some parts of England? Is it not a fact that there are considerably more difficulties in organising sport in such areas than in the densely populated urban areas; and in view of the fact that Dr. Beeching is now going to remove most of our railways, may I ask whether this is not also an impediment to the organisation of sporting fixtures?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, could I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, that it would be a great help to the matters he has just raised if the report of the Jack Committee were implemented.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, dealing with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I am not sure that I really welcome an argument about the effect of railway closures upon sport at this stage of my duties. As regards the difficulties of rural and urban areas, I should have thought they were different rather than greater one than the other, and obviously that is just the sort of thing which has to be discussed and co-ordinated in the light of our conclusions on the Wolfenden Report. But I certainly will not omit consideration of Wales or Scotland, although the Wolfenden Report, so far as I remember, said that in some respects Scotland was rather in advance of English thought in this matter and therefore may be able to teach us something.
LORD WISE: My Lords, before the Lord President closes this matter, may I make a plea on behalf of the schools in their sporting organisations? I understood a few days ago, when I was attending a meeting of the County Schools Athletic Association, that there was a possibility that the education authorities would cut down the annual grants—I am not referring to capital expenditure but to annual grants for the carrying out of schools sports and athletic meetings. Can the Lord President, in dealing with this particular point, bear in mind that we rely upon schools athletics for turning out national athletes of a high standard. It is important, I think, that all schools organisations at county level or All-England level, whether they are for athletics or

1255
Rugby or cricket or anything else, should receive the greatest possible support by the Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I apologise to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman for not having answered his question? I am afraid that if somebody gets up behind me, he is rather apt to be out of sight but not out of mind. I will certainly bear in mind what he says, but I should not like to say anything more about that now.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wise, I appreciate what he says about the importance of sport and games in schools in relation to the whole problem, but I think I should say that the functions I outlined in my statement were not designed to supersede those of the Minister of Education, who is directly responsible for this, but to accept the point made by the Wolfenden Committee: that the subject is a good deal wider than education and that a good many other departments and considerations have to be brought to bear. But I fully accept the point he has made.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION EXCHANGES
3.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I now turn to a rather different subject and answer the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who asked me about laying the exchanges which took place in 1953 concerning the Central African Federation? I think I must just repeat as my substantive Answer what my right honourable friend has, I hope, by now just said in answer to a Question in another place. He replied:
"It is important to respect the confidential character of documents, and Her Majesty's Government must also consider the positions of the other parties concerned."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for having answered my Question. I must say that, whilst I have every respect for the tradition and practice of respecting confidential documents which the noble
1256
Viscount has obviously alluded to in his Answer, I wonder how we are placed in respect of the situation which was created yesterday. A Prime Minister who is a Privy Counsellor, speaking in a Parliament of a British State under the Crown, reveals, according to him accurately, statements, pledges, which were given by the British Government, and in respect of what they regard as a breach of faith. I think stronger words are used in Sir Roy Welensky's speech. although he was only repeating what he says were words used by the Prime Minister in a speech he made two or three years ago in Rhodesia. They regard it there as a breach of faith; they have published this vast document which has been sent to me officially by the High Commissioner of the Central African Federation, which clearly has been handed to the Press as well, for Sir Roy Welensky indicated at the end of his speech that he was going to hand it to the Press.
I cannot refrain from thinking that, although the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made, I thought, an excellent speech, from the legal point of view, last night, and gave a great many explanations, the general impression, not only upon our public but upon those who look, sometimes with favour sometimes askance, at the British reputation, will not be favourable. Their anxieties will not be relieved unless the Government can make some further statement upon it.
The position really is that the British Parliament passed the necessary Statute setting up the Federation in 1953, and although I am not saying at the moment that it was strictly incumbent on the Government at that time to inform Parliament that these pledges had been given; nevertheless it was abundantly clear to my own Party in 1959 and 1960, when we were discussing the setting up of the Monckton Commission, that no really satisfactory solution to the problem in Central Africa from the political point of view would be reached unless the Monckton Commission were to examine at least the question of the right of secession; and because no actual words in the instructions to the Commission allowed that to be examined my Party refrained from having representation upon the Monckton Committee.

1257
Whatever has transpired since then in any misunderstanding, if I may use that moderate word, between Sir Roy Welensky's Government and the Home Government here would not have arisen, I think, if the British Parliament had been fully informed as to what federation involved, according to the statements we listened to in the House last night from two ex-Secretaries of State for the Colonies, which revealed almost that it was assumed that nothing in the nature of a Federation would ever be set up, or could be set up, unless it was to be subjected to that overriding consideration that there could be no constitutional change in it without the full agreement of all its constituent members.
That is the situation. We heard the speech yesterday from the Marquess of Salisbury which I do not wish to comment upon—he made his statement. We heard the short supporting statements from two ex-Secretaries of State. It is unfortunate that, because of the important negotiations at present being pursued, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who was much in the picture in regard to all the policies discussed and finally adopted in regard to Central Africa, are absent in the Bahamas. But I must say that, I think, in all the circumstances there ought to be no final decision by the Government saying that they will not lay the Papers. I am perfectly well aware that it is the usual practice that you do not feel under compulsion to lay Papers unless somebody in the Government for the time being has actually quoted from them. What is Sir Roy Welensky's position in this matter? He has told his Parliament, and he has told the world, that he is laying the Papers. It is not merely his speech; he has issued a considerable White Paper which sets out, following him, the full statement from the point of view of his legal advisers, as to what the present situation is.
I beg the Government to consider this matter. I thoroughly respect the general rule with regard to the Government of the day having the final voice as to what they reveal in the way of confidential documents, but in this case the mischief is done. Are the charges made correct or are they not? That is what we want to know. I think the public are entitled to know. Are these supporting statements
1258
and arguments of ex-Secretaries of State who are also Privy Counsellors night or wrong? This is important from the point of view of the Government. Are there not other considerations in this ease also included in the confidential documents which they would be entitled to quote in rebuttal of some of the arguments used in this great public speech of Sir Roy Welensky? I do not want the public to think that the Government are being asked to publish again just the statements that Sir Roy Welensky has made; but the Government must say whether they are true or not, and if not wholly true, let them give the evidence to show they are not true.
I am most concerned about one statement made by Sir Roy Welensky in his speech—namely, his remark about what he thinks is the dowering of public standards in this country in the last decade. I think that wants a lot of consideration before it is accepted. I hope that the Government will have regard to the principle so often advocated that not only must you make sure that you are acting the truth, but you must make it clear and seen that you are acting the truth. Therefore, I urge them to reconsider the answer that they have given me to-day.
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not really think the noble Viscount has appreciated what my right honourable friend has said in another place. I am a little sorry that we have had quite so much detail from him. My right honourable friend never said that there had been a concluded decision not to publish this Paper. What he said was that it is important to respect the confidential character of documents, and that Her Majesty's Government must also consider the position of the other parties concerned. I should have thought that was pretty plain. What I said last night and what I say this afternoon is that there are five Governments involved in this series of discussions and they are entitled to have their confidence respected; and obviously a most important constitutional principle is involved. My right honourable friend must clearly have time to consider whether a situation has come in which we are driven to breach it. He has not said positively that

1259
a final decision has been arrived at—clearly there must be further consideration about that. But I must say, speaking for myself, that, without in any way accepting the interpretation which has been put on the speeches which we heard yesterday, and without commenting upon them, I greatly resent suggestions that Her Majesty's Government have done anything dishonourable. I fancy my standards of honour are just as high as those of Sir Roy Welensky.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I am not in any way disagreeing with that, and I am not at this stage saying that in my view what has been done is dishonourable. What I want established in the public mind and in the world Press and opinion is the answer to this matter. What is the real answer? If there is a real answer to these charges specifically made and quoted from documents, then I am anxious for the Papers to be laid so that the truth may be known.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, am not altogether unsympathetic to what the noble Viscount has said, but I think we must also bear this in mind at the same time. What I said last night is absolutely true. People have been rather apt—and it is not the first time this has happened with this particular gentleman—to make charges of bad faith and then to refer to documents which either have to be revealed in toto or not at all: there can be no halfway house about this. It puts the Government in an odious position—not only the Governments who took part in these particular negotiations but almost every other Commonwealth Government. The whole value of the Commonwealth, on one view, lies in the absolute freedom of confidence with which exchanges of opinion of one sort or another take place between the Commonwealth countries. If in future it is going to be the standard that what you say in confidence between Prime Minister and Prime Minister or between Prime Minister and Secretary of State is going to be dragged out nine years later and made the subject of public controversy, I tremble to think what is going to be the future of Commonwealth consultation.
I say quite frankly that I do not want to go too far, because obviously I should
1260
be doing my right honourable friend an ill-service if I did. But I would just remind the House of one incident at the time of the Monckton Commission, when a similar charge was made by the same right honourable gentleman Sir Roy Welensky, based upon a confidential exchange at that time between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and himself in a series of letters. Again we are faced with this odious dilemma. On that occasion my right honourable friend offered to publish it and Sir Roy Welensky, in my judgment rightly, said he did not want it published because he did not want to breach the principle of confidentiality. That is what happened that time—and if we are talking about breach of faith, I have always thought a breach of confidence is a breach of faith. I think some very serious things have happened in the last 48 hours, and I do not think that the fault is on our side.
I do not wish to damage in any way the relations between my right honourable friend and those with whom he will have discussions when he goes out there very shortly. Therefore, I want to be very careful indeed in what I say. I would add this. A lot of people yesterday were saying, in effect, that the statement which my right honourable friend gave in the House of Commons yesterday, and which was repeated here, was a gross breach of faith, but, of course, they went on, "We welcome the visit of my right honourable friend to Rhodesia—he is the only man who can deal with the subject." I thought there was something pretty odd about that attitude.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this one question? Quite apart from the question of publishing or not publishing confidential documents, would the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House make it clear, as I am sure he will, that any pledge, whether given in secret or in confidence, is just as binding as any pledge made openly?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have always tried to make my word my bond, whether what I say is private or public, and so I know have my honourable friends and my light honourable friends. But sometimes you find yourself having to defend your honour with one hand tied behind your back against people who have broken a confidence.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I think it is obvious that, in view of the grave repercussions that there might be in a matter of this kind, the Government must have sufficient time to go into it fully. I feel that this is a most extraordinary development, as the noble Viscount has said, of Commonwealth consultation, and I would have thought a very delicate matter altogether. I do not think that we should press the noble Viscount to-day.
May I draw attention to something which is not a confidential matter, but something which was said in public yesterday by Sir Roy Welensky in the Rhodesian Parliament: that is, his statement that Britain is utterly reckless of the fate of the inhabitants of the present Federation. Well, as one who supports the Government in this instance and welcomes their decision over Nyasaland, may I ask them to repudiate completely that statement which will do a great deal of harm in some quarters?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged for both parts of what the noble Lord has said. Clearly, I repudiate quite categorically the statement which is attributed to Sir Roy Welensky. I think it would be better if his language was sometimes more temperate than it has been recently.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, before we close down upon this subject, I should like to say that I personally am not without some experience of understanding the difficulties about laying Papers. An outstanding political disappointment in my life was having to refrain from laying Papers over the mutiny at Invergordon. In the middle of a statement at that time, the Prime Minister of the day got up and suddenly quoted from a Cabinet document. Before anyone could do anything else, the Adjournment of the House was moved and everyone begged me almost on their knees, from then until 7.30, not to renew the discussion, because if I had given the whole of the facts there would certainly have been a second mutiny at Invergordon. Therefore, I did not say anything at all. I am not without experience of the repercussions that occur when somebody breaks the rule, as that Prime Minister did that day; I am not unaware of it. But you cannot
1262
expect whole Parliaments and whole sets of public opinion to make a personal sacrifice in this matter. The whole reputation of the British Government has been put at stake by the action of Sir Roy Welensky, and it is a matter to be put right with the rest of the Commonwealth and with the rest of the world. I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are away at the present time. It is reasonable for the First Secretary of State to have time to consider still further the matter with his colleagues. I am quite in agreement with that. I should have read this short Answer as not indicating that at all. I shall be happy to hear that the Government will make a further statement at no long-dated future period.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I cannot go further than I have done this afternoon. Obviously I agree to some extent with what the noble Viscount has said, but this is a great Commonwealth issue, not simply a question of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary being in the Bahamas. There are four Governments in Central Africa which are concerned, and I should have thought that it concerned other Governments in the Commonwealth as well. One cannot be in a hurry even about defending or vindicating one's own reputation when these great issues are at stake.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as the House is rising to-day for the Recess, will the Government publish their decision as soon as one has been reached?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: All I can say is that I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to the noble Earl's suggestion, but, as I say, I cannot take it further than I have done this afternoon.

BRUNEI
3.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): With your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a statement on Brunei which is being made by my right honourable friend in another place.
Thanks to the prompt arrival in Brunei in response to the Brunei Government's request, under their agreement

1263
with us, of military and police reinforcements, I am glad to say that the rebels' attempted coup has already been frustrated, organised resistance has ceased and order has been largely re-established. A sufficient security force is now in the territory to deal with remaining rebel pockets.
Immediate reinforcements were on the spot very quickly indeed. A police contingent from North Borneo was in Brunei within a few hours of the outbreak of violence at 2 a.m. on the morning of the 8th December. British forces from Singapore left by air about twelve hours after the outbreak. All major centres, both in Brunei and in the affected area of Sarawak, have been cleared, and life is returning to normal in the towns and villages. Rebel activity is now virtually confined to certain rural areas. The oil installations at Seria are undamaged, and all hostages throughout the area have been released. There are no British prisoners in rebel hands. British service casualities are 7 killed and 28 wounded. Final information about police casualties is not yet available, but there were some killed and wounded. At least 2 civilians were killed and 7 wounded. Definite information about rebel casualties is not yet available, but it is estimated that between 50 and 60 have been killed and 600 to 700 taken prisoner.
Reports so far received show that the Brunei State police put up stout, and in some cases highly successful, resistance to the attacks on Government buildings.
Since the rebellion in Brunei spilled over into some adjacent areas of North Borneo and Sarawak it is obviously essential to secure the efficient co-ordination of civil and military measures in all three territories. With the approval of the Governments concerned, Major General W. C. Walker has been appointed Director of Operations and Commander of British Forces in Borneo. The Commissioner General, Lord Selkirk, and the Commander in Chief, Far East, are also in the closest touch with the situation.
I know your Lordships will wish me to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the Security Farces, both Services and Police; and I am sure the House would wish to join me in extending
1264
our sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives, and to those who were wounded.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we on this side of the House would wish to share in the tribute paid by the noble Duke to the forces who have been involved in Brunei, as well as in his condolences to the relatives of those soldiers who have given their lives. I think that the Service side in particular must be congratulated far the speed with which they operated. Our main worry now must be as to the future, and I hope the noble Duke will be able to tell us that it is the Government's intention to withdraw the military from Brunei as quickly as possible and to build up the police force. I am sure he will agree that the soldier is not always best for dealing with long-term security problems. I do not know Whether the noble Duke can say whether it is the intention of the Government of Brunei to build up its awn police force, or whether, in the interim, they would be prepared to accept policemen from the Federation of Malaysia. I have had some experience out there, and a local police force which speaks the language and well understands the customs is certainly the answer. I hope the noble Duke can give us some assurance in that direction.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that certainly military personnel will remain no longer in the territory than is absolutely necessary. So far as building up a police force there is concerned, that is of course a matter for the Sultan and his Government in Brunei. There are, of course, already police seconded from the Federation of Malaya, and I feel quite certain that the Malayan Government will be only too glad to co-operate with the Government and Sultan of Brunei should they wish to extend their services.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches and myself. I should like to extend our congratulations to the authorities on this particularly successful operation; and to extend to the relatives of the deceased—whether Service, police or civilian casualties—our sympathy. I should like to ask the noble Duke two questions, if I may. First, does not this operation show

1265
in the facts that he has just given us how important it is to have mobility of troops, a matter upon which we on these Benches have often made representations to the Government?
LORD SHEPHERD: And we on these Benches.
LORD OGMORE: Yes. When I say "these Benches", I mean the Benches all the way along.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: And all the way round, too.
LORD OGMORE: I am not quite sure how far round they go. Sometimes they stop in a sort of semi-circle before getting all the way. But there are certainly some noble Lords behind the noble Viscount, who have supported us in this desire for more mobility and more comprehensive forces, and less nuclear deterrent.
The second question I should like to ask the noble Duke is this. Has his attention been drawn to the report that President Sukarno of Indonesia has recently stated that anyone who does not support the rebels is a traitor; and does he regard those words as friendly when applied to the Federation of Malaya or the States for which we are responsible in Borneo?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, if I may, I will deal with the second question first. My attention has been drawn to this broadcast. The actual text of what President Sukarno said is being studied. We, of course, view with grave disfavour such statements. We have expressed our concern to the Government of Indonesia at their reaction to the uprising. We are now awaiting their reply to our overtures. On the question of mobility of forces, I know my colleagues are fully aware of the vital importance of this aspect of our Services. As one who achieved only very humble rank, I think my own approval of this would carry very little weight. But those better qualified to know than I, do give this matter full consideration.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, following on this question, may I ask my noble friend whether there is any evidence of participation or planning on the part of the Indonesian Government, or of individuals or organisations in Indonesia,
1266
in this rising, which, after all, is not limited to Brunei but includes Sarawak and also. I understand, North Borneo? And will not the question which the noble Lord opposite asked about the withdrawal of troops largely depend on the answer to the question I put, and on the existence of any further threats from Indonesian Borneo to this area?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that we have no evidence of any supply of arms to the rebels from any outside country. I should not wish to go further, I am afraid, than my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place last week, when he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 669 (No. 30), col. 35]:
"There are indications, but they are not yet firm, that the rebel forces have received, or have undergone, a certain amount of military training outside the country."
I am afraid at this stage I could go no further than that. Of course, my noble friend is quite right, that these considerations will play their part in the length of time which our services stay in the country of Borneo.

WATER RESOURCES BILL
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved to omit the reference to the proposed new Mersey and Weaver River Authority and the Lancashire and Cumberland River Authority, and to insert instead:

"25 The Mersey, Weaver and Ribble River Authority.

The Mersey River Board area, the Cheshire River Board area and the part of the Lancashire River Board area south of the catchment area of the river Lune.

26 The Lune, Lakes and Eden River Authority

The Cumberland River Board area and the remaining part of the Lancashire River Board area."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to go back to the White Paper. Therefore, and to that extent, it does not raise matters of principle on those general considerations of providing an efficient water service which the noble Earl explained to us so ably on Tuesday. The White Paper, if your Lordships remember, proposed a river authority of Cumberland, Westmorland

1267
and the northern part of Lancashire. The Bill changes that, and proposes to amalgamate two river boards, Cumberland and Lancashire. The same principles must have been in the mind of the Government when they drafted the White Paper as when they drafted the Bill, so that there can be no conflict of principle here. There is a question, I think, of degree, as to which of these two alternatives can give the best service. This question of degree has evidently been an extraordinarily difficult one. There was a change of mind between the White Paper and the Bill. Obviously, this was a very difficult problem and there was quite clearly, as I mentioned before on Second Reading, a conflict of opinion within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
I think I can understand the difficulty on both sides. To some extent I have been involved in these negotiations as a member of the river board in question, and I think the arguments are very nicely balanced. I believe, however, that I can demonstrate that the general consideration of making a really efficient water service can be better served by the proposals of the White Paper and the proposals of my Amendment than by the proposal set forth in the Bill. I told the noble Earl that I did not propose to divide the Committee on this Amendment. It seems to me that a proper solution to this problem can be arrived at only by examination and re-examination. and finally by agreement. But one cannot possibly decide this by, shall I say, a win in a Division of this Committee. So I have said that I will not divide, but I hope, none the less, that I shall be able to enlist your Lordships' sympathy in seeing that my solution to this question is a very good one.
What are these problems that have been so difficult to decide? It seems to me that the first one, the one on which all the rest hang and which is much the most important, is the financial considerations. It was these financial considerations which probably led to a change of mind. The financial considerations fall under two heads. First of all, there are the new functions, the functions of water conservation. In this respect it seems to me that we are going to be one of the richer, rather than one of the poorer authorities. We are a
1268
great water exporting area and, in spite of the provisions of Clause 58—which you will remember are the provisions which allow abstracters to pay a less sum, or indeed no sum at all in certain circumstances, until the value of the old works they have done has been written off—as exporters of water we are going to be a richer rather than a poorer authority. It may be that it will be some time before that happens. It may be some years before Thirlmere, Hawes-water and, more recently, Sleddale will pay their proper contribution towards water conservation. Nevertheless, we are going to be one of the richer authorities in this particular connection of the new functions. That means to say that we are going to be able to afford the best technical staff, and we are going to be able to make the fullest use of the best technical staff; so I do not feel that there are any difficulties on this score—that is to say, on the score of financing the new functions.
There are, however, the old functions, and I think it is the financing of these old functions Which probably has been the reason for the change of mind. The old functions, you will remember, are water pollution, fisheries and, most particularly, land drainage. Now finance for these old functions comes, of course, from the rates. I would not for one instant try to minimise the great strength of central Lancashire in this respect, but I do say, very definitely, that there is a limit to what can be spent (and, indeed. to what should be spent) on matters of land drainage in this area, and that we can find the money—that is to say, the authority I am proposing can find that money.
The position at the moment is that the present product of a penny rate for the area I am suggesting—that is to say, the Lune, Lakes and Eden River authority—is already bigger than that from the areas of possibly eight, and certainly six, of the river authorities now proposed. If those river authorities are strong enough to do their own old functions, then clearly we are, too. There is also, coming on top of this, the new rateable values. I want to stress this very much: that we do not want to ask for more money under the new rateable values when they come in because the whole idea of the new rating is that we should not try to "pump up" the amount

1269
of money we are taking but should leave it, so far as we can, as it is. So, although I mention the fact that there will shortly be this revision of rateable values which will increase the amount of money available to us, it is only to mention that there will be this increase available if it should be necessary.
Thirdly, there is the question of capital works. We feel that we can spend a sum of something like half a million pounds over a period of years. I do not know what sort of period: one might take ten years. I think ten years is perhaps the kind of term both we and Lancashire were thinking of. This can be financed by borrowing and 70 per cent. grant aid. Seventy per cent. is the present rate which our board is getting, and presumably we shall go on at the same rate. We can do this at an annual cost of less than the product of a halfpenny rate. I feel that the river authority proposed by the Bill can, and indeed should, do no more than that. I suggest that to do more would be wasteful. First of all, do not forget that this is a hilly region. It is very different from Lincolnshire, or if you take somewhere in the West, like Somerset, which also has large areas of land which require a considerable amount of drainage. We are not like that. We are a hilly area, and we cannot, by the very nature of the country, spend the amount on drainage that places like Lincolnshire or Somerset can.
Next, there is the amount of work which has already been done in the last fourteen years. Since then, we have done a tremendous amount of work, and we have now reached the stage where we are looking round for schemes to do and are finding difficulty in getting schemes which can really be justified financially. In this context, I feel there is a tendency for the Ministry of Agriculture to restrain us in our efforts to spend money rather than to press us to spend more.
Now I do not want to get into a state in which I am conducting an auction or making a bid with the noble Lords who are going to oppose this proposal afterwards as to which of us can spend the largest amount of money for the area in question, because this would be really quite foolish. My point is that either of the authorities proposed, the one in the
1270
Bill or the one in the White Paper, which is the subject of my Amendment, can do all that is necessary—and, indeed, all that is desirable. It is quite true that central Lancashire is very much richer in rateable value than we are, but I feel that this is wholly immaterial here. We have enough, and we can do all that is necessary; and it is not necessarily a good thing to do more than is necessary. If you have in hand enough money for a particular purpose, it is dangerous to have more. If you have too much, there is a tendency in these connections for people to get rather big ideas in their heads and to start spending money extravagantly. The point here seems to me to be that we have enough, and enough is all that we should need. We can both command and use the best services as regards the new functions; and as regards the old functions we can do them as adequately as they require to be done. Now we cannot do any more: nor, indeed, can we do any more even if central Lancashire is added to us. So much for finance.
With regard to administration, I understand the force of the argument of the Proudman Report, which suggested that there should be twelve to fourteen river authorities. Indeed, what I noted with particular interest was that the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, is following me with an Amendment which virtually asks your Lordships' Committee to adopt the Proudman suggestion of fourteen river authorities. But what is very significant and interesting from my point of view is that this Amendment, which I understand has the blessing of the Federation of British Industries, also includes among its fourteen areas the one which I am proposing should be adopted—that is to say, the Lune, Lakes and Eden. Furthermore, I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, who is proposing an Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has not seen fit, although he has altered several of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, to alter the suggestion that No. 14, I think it is, which is the Lune, Lakes and Eden River, should be retained.
Now I can also understand the force of the argument, which I believe was put up as long ago as 1870, that there should be only about five great conservation areas, rather like the Electricity

1271
Board has now; and I can understand the argument put forward by the Minority Report, that you should go back again to the old river authorities; but, as we are doing none of those things, as the Bill is proposing something like 26 authorities, then, within the context of those 26 authorities, this seems to me to be a bad compromise. Central Lancashire and Lakeland together, no. Either you have what is suggested in the Amendment set down by the noble Lord, Lord Jesse], which is a big national plan, or you have a small local government set-up, which I think was the desire expressed in a good many of the other Amendments which put forward the proposition that we should go back to the old river board areas. Now it seems to me that the White Paper was a good compromise on these general administrative problems as to what are the best areas, but this Bill's proposal is, I cannot help but think, a bad compromise.
On Second Reading we went into the question of the difficulties of the area topographically and hydrologically, and I pointed out then how difficult it was for both members and staff to operate this particular area. Now this is a different question from suggesting that a very big area, of which there might be only five others in the country, is difficult to operate administratively. But this area is neither one thing nor the other: it is neither a great big area, with the tremendous resources which only six areas would have; nor is it a small, local-government set-up. It is a sort of hotchpotch, and is a difficult one to administer. It is already a bigger area than the one I am proposing. Adding central Lancashire is going to make it more difficult, as one can see from the correspondence in the negotiations, and this has been readily admitted by the Ministry. I cannot help feeling that the area proposed by the Bill looks balanced only in comparative lists of rateable values in an office, but when you come down to operate it on the ground, as we shall have to do, it is not at all easy.
Now we come to representation. In a way this is almost the most important of all. The Lune Lakes and Eden River area is going to be the greatest water exporter of the lot. It is also the greatest National Park in the country. It simply
1272
must have control of its own affairs. The Bill proposes a state of affairs which will give an eight to one majority in favour of the consuming interests of Central Lancashire, and through Central Lancashire to its patron and supplier, in South Lancashire. That can only mean, as I said at Second Reading, short-term interests, limited objectives and a state of affairs which is damaging to long-term planning. This state of affairs is not met by committees, whether area or functional, and it is not met by co-opting other people on to these committees. In any case, you can co-opt only up to one-third and, in the last resort, the final say is with the river authority. The ultimate control of these resources—and I beg your Lordships to agree with me—must not be in the hands of an arbitrarily tacked-on water-consuming industrial interest. Amenity has been gone into very closely by the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Molson. I feel that their points have not altogether been met. Clause 93 is a very weak one.
I agree with the noble Earl when he said he did not want a Council of delegates. That would make nonsense of these things. But the fact is that planning control is very vague and Parliamentary control seems to be non-existent. There is no Parliamentary control at all. The noble Earl said "the comprehensive structure of the new river authority should strengthen amenity". it should; but if the structure is wrong in the first place, it cannot. The Lake District is a very special area and it should command its own resources.
Now let me look at some of the problems of Central Lancashire. These are the ones, I think, that the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, is going to discuss. First of all, the Ribble Fisheries. The Ribble area which is Central Lancashire is worried that, if it is tacked on to Mersey, the authorities in Mersey will not know anything about game fish. None of the river boards when they started in 1951 knew anything about fishery interests. We started from scratch and set up fishery committees and subcommittees, and we made it work. Surely Mersey can do the same. They can get a fisheries set-up going and operate fishery interests every bit as well as the other river boards did in

1273
1951. There is feeling that the Ribble area is a beautiful one and that to tack it on to Mersey would be a mistake. I agree that it is beautiful, but Central Lancashire (which is this area) has Blackpool, Southport, Preston, Burnley, Blackburn and Wigan; and surely all these belong with the Mersey and not with Lakeland. They have the same interests, the same kind of wealth and the same homogeneity. There is no difficulty here.
Noble Lords may think that some of the arguments I have put forward are by themselves not as strong as one would wish. But this is a very complicated problem and one on which the Ministry had two minds. But even if some of them are weak by themselves the general considerations outweigh any individual weakness. This is a special area. It has special water conservation problems—the biggest conservation problems of the lot—and it has special amenity problems. This is a unique area and it should be treated in a quite special way. It must not be linked to and under the domination of short-term consuming interests. The ultimate control of its own vast resources of water and beauty must be in its own hands. I beg the Government to go back to the White Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert—

("The Mersey, Weaver and Ribble River Authority

The Mersey River Board area, the Cheshire River Board area and the part of the Lancashire River Board area south of the catchment area of the river Lune.

The Lune, Lakes and Eden River Authority.

The Cumberland River Board area and the remaining part of the Lancashire River Board area.")

—(Lord Henley)
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): I wonder whether it might be to the convenience of the House if I were to outline the Government's view on this Amendment early on. If not, I will gladly make way for anyone else. I am taking silence for consent. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and I am sure all noble Lords are grateful, for the clarity with which he has explained his argument. I would add that I am particularly grateful also for the moderate terms
1274
in which he has presented his case and for his offer not to divide on this issue this evening. I agree that this is not the sort of issue we should settle in such a way. We should set out to balance the arguments which arise. I shall do my best, after the noble Lord's explanation of his case in moderate and reasonable terms, to return the compliment. In my view the case for and against proposed amalgamation does, in fact, rest on the facts and the interpretation we place on the facts, and it is not my wish to cloud the issue with emotion. It is certainly and strongly my wish that nothing we or others should say in our discussions this afternoon should do anything to make it more difficult for those concerned to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the important and pressing problem of Manchester's future water supplies.
I should like to say straight away that on one essential point I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I tried at the start of our discussion two days ago to deploy the general case for amalgamating a number of the existing river boards. I feel that there is a powerful case for these amalgamations, and I felt that there was an important issue of principle at stake here at the start of our discussions two days ago. But as the noble Lord explained, if we were to accept his Amendment we should not necessarily thereby increase the number of river authorities. I feel, therefore, that the principle of amalgamation is not at stake to-day but that we are basically considering frontier jurisdiction.
I should like briefly to go over the past history of this issue on which the noble Lord has touched. It is true—indeed, it Is obvious—Ithat in considering the balance of advantage over the last year or so we have not always come to the same conclusion. Our first idea was that it would be best to go for a new area to embrace the whole of the main water-producing districts of the North-West and thus facilitate the planning and development of resources as a whole. We were therefore inclined to favour the amalgamation of the whole of the Cumberland and Lancashire River Boards. We took the view that the Cumberland area would be rather large for amalgamation and that there might be certain difficulties in securing adequate representation of all

1275
the interests involved. It was eventually decided, after a good deal of cogitation, to include in the White Paper the proposal to divide the Lancashire River Board area, amalgamating part with the Cumberland River Board area to the North, and the remainder with the next grouping to the South. The precise dividing line was held over for further thought, but we were thinking in terms of a boundary between the Lune and the Ribble.
When the White Paper was published both River Boards were given full opportunity of discussing with the Ministries the proposals in it. I remember very well speaking at the annual conference of the River Boards' Association at Keswick shortly after the publication of the White Paper, and I made it clear in my speech that we should welcome representations from the river boards and full consultation with them. Subsequently the Lancashire River Board submitted a very detailed memorandum and came down to discuss it in London. There was correspondence between Whitehall and the Cumberland River Board, but although two dates were arranged for meetings in London with the Cumberland River Board, neither meeting took place. But the Board, have, of course, been fully aware at all times that if they wished a meeting it was there for the asking. Again, each Board has received a copy of all the correspondence passing between the Ministry and the other Board.
For this reason, I think that we must assume that the Cumberland River Board must have been fully aware of the arguments produced by the Lancashire River Board for the larger grouping now proposed in the Bill. In the event, after a good deal of anxious thought, the two Ministers came to the conclusion that the amalgamation of the whole of the two areas was, in fact, preferable to the partial amalgamation proposed in the White Paper. The two river boards concerned were, of course, notified of this change before the Bill which we are now discussing was introduced in your Lordships' House. I have the impression—it was certainly not conveyed by anything which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said this afternoon—that some people have read some sinister intent behind this change of mind. I
1276
hope that my account of the simple and quite straightforward story has dispelled that misconception—if, indeed, there is such a misconception. Of course, there is nothing strange about a Government changing their minds on an issue of this sort between the White Paper and the Bill. That is one of the reasons why White Papers, and their discussion in Parliament and outside Parliament, are there.
Having said that, I should like to outline to your Lordships the positive reasons, as I see them, for the present proposal. The main and principal justification for it is based on water conservation. When, last February, your Lordships debated the Manchester Corporation's proposal to abstract water from Ullswater and Bannisdale. there was a good deal of divergence on many matters connected with this in your Lordships' House. But I think that one point on which everyone agreed was that the heavily populated and heavily industrialised areas of South and South-East Lancashire were going to need much more water in the future than they had required in the past and that there was some considerable urgency about this. As the decades roll by, possibilities which now seem remote or academic or uneconomic might well become probabilities. Possibly part of the industrial North-West's thirst may be satisfied in the long run through large-scale distillation of salt water, or by big schemes to draw water southwards from Scotland, or in other ways. But, for the time being, I am myself convinced, from such study of this matter as I have made, that for the most part, when the North-West grows thirsty it must inevitably look towards the Lake District and to the rivers rising in the Lake District and in the Pennines.
I have been much concerned about this matter of late as a result of finding myself, following your Lordships' decision last February, the chairman of a conference whose task it has been, and still is, to try to elucidate the facts of the situation here. Obviously it would be quite wrong for me to anticipate any of the conclusions to which that conference might be coming, but I think we are all agreed that because of the unspoiled, and in many ways unparalleled, beauty of the landscape in so much of the area we

1277
have been discussing, it is essential that further development of the North-West's water resources should be planned, not only with the greatest care but also on as wide, forward-looking and comprehensive a basis as possible.
This entails not only careful but continuous study of all the possible means of meeting any given demand for water, so that we can eventually select a scheme —or schemes—which does the least possible damage to amenity, which makes the least possible demand on good farmland and yet conduces to the greatest possible efficiency and economy. In my view, and in the Government's view, such schemes are most likely to result, if these matters are kept constantly under review by an authority which has under its eye all the main water-producing areas of the region. And by this I mean an authority which embraces not only the Lake District but also the River Lune and the Ribble—in short, an authority such as we have proposed in Schedule 1 to this Bill.
I would say, quite frankly, that this is the principal justification for the area we have proposed, but I should not be arguing this case if I felt that the choice of an area such as we have proposed would do serious damage to other interests. But far from damaging other interests, I believe that the larger area will benefit them. May I take, for example, the important matter of land drainage, on which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, touched? If we join the whole of the Lancashire River Board area with the Cumberland area, as we propose, this will mean that the financial resources of the industrial part of the Lancashire area (and this part coincides with the Ribble catchment) will be available to support and stimulate land drainage work in the Northern part of the Lancashire area and in Cumberland. Over 70 per cent. of the rateable value of the Lancashire River Board area is in the South-Eastern part, the Ribble Catchment. At present, the Southern part, in effect, subsidies land drainage work in the Northern area, and it is precisely in that Northern part that the need for land drainage is the greatest. I am not a land drainage expert, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is. I do not know the North-West nearly so well as he does, and therefore I shall be cautious in what I say there. But I
1278
was surprised to hear him say that we could easily exaggerate the need for land drainage in that area, bearing in mind the acute land drainage needs in areas such as Fylde and the Wyre Estuary, where I understand that a great deal of capital expenditure is required and that these areas are not particularly hilly.
I should like here to go into more detailed figures which illustrate the position pretty clearly. Let us, for the sake of argument, divide the existing area of the Lancashire River Board into three parts— the South-Eastern part, coinciding with the Ribble Catchment, the central part, coinciding with the Lune and Wyre Catchments, and the Northern part. In the financial year 1961–62, well under one-third—28·1 per cent., to be precise—of the rateable value of the whole area was to be found in the Central and Northern parts taken together. On the other hand, well over half—54·5 per cent., to be precise—of the expenditure on land drainage (and this is directly financed from the rates) is concentrated in those parts of the area. If the Ribble Catchment were detached—and this, of course, would be the result if we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment—these financial resources would be cut off or at least drastically curtailed. The inevitable result must be either to curtail the programme of land drainage work in Northern Lancashire or to increase the precept paid by the local authorities there. My information (I am not an expert either on land drainage or on rateable value) is that if the present land drainage work in that part of North Lancashire is to be maintained, with the Ribble Catchment area's rateable value detached from it, there will be an increase of a 3d rate in the pound to be borne by the remaining authorities.
Next I come to fisheries, with which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, also dealt. The game fisheries of the Ribble, which are not unimportant, are at present supervised and managed by an authority which is responsible for other game fish rivers, such as the Lune. There is an excellent scientific organisation based on the Lune, and the hatchery for the Ribble fisheries is also located there. I am told that fishing on the Ribble is improving rapidly and substantially as a

1279
result of these benefits. If your Lordships accept the noble Lord's Amendment, it will mean that the Ribble Catchment will be detached from the rest of the Lancashire River Board area and stuck on, as it were, to the Mersey area. I have no criticism to make of the Mersey River Board, but I would point out (and I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, minimised the practical problems here) that that authority, simply by reason of the circumstances of its area, has had little or no experience of came fish rivers. I would add that we have received strong representations from the Ribble Fisheries Association against the erection of what I might term Henley's Dyke between the Ribble and the Lune.
All in all, I feel that there is an overwhelming case, indeed a clinching case, on grounds of water conservation for the area proposed in Schedule 1, and I would argue that (that case is strongly reinforced by these considerations of land drainage and fisheries which I have just put to your Lordships.
What about the arguments against this larger amalgamation? Although I am sure there is no misconception among mast of your Lordships here, I should like to make one thing crystal clear. There are three important towns in the southern part of the Lancashire river board area, Burnley, Wigan and Accrington, which receive a supply of bulk water from the Manchester Corporation. Small quantities are also taken by the Preston and Fylde Waiter Boards and by two other districts. But the area of the proposed river authority does not, of course, include Manchester; nor does it include areas supplied with water in detail by the Manchester Corporation. I am sure that there is no real misconception here, but I was anxious to make this point clear, because I think there has been a feeling among some less well-informed people that Schedule 1 might in some way represent an attempt by Manchester or its supporters, having failed last February to make a further entry into the Lake District by the front door of your Lordships' House, to infiltrate by the back door. That, of course, is not the case.
As I understand it, one of the main objections the noble Lord has to the
1280
proposed river authority is the fear that its membership will be dominated by town-dwellers from Lancashire who will not have either the knowledge or the will to protect the Lake District or its beauties. I can quite understand this fear, but I would suggest that it is pretty groundless, or at least greatly exaggerated. It is quite wrong to assume that this proposed river authority would be dominated by any one faction. Its membership will be made up largely of persons appointed by Ministers for their special expertise. The local authority's members will be in a narrow majority. Let us assume that the authority is one of the larger ones, and that it has 31 members. In that event, there would be 16 local authority appointments and 15 ministerial appointments. I would grant that Ministers sometimes make bad appointments, but I hope the noble Lord will concede that it is unlikely that all of the 15 will be insensitive urban morons.
Then what about the local authority 16? I would grant straight away that, as the local authority appointments are to be shared on the basis of rateable values, there will be many more members from the Lancashire area than from the Cumberland area. From such figures as I have seen, the proportions are likely to work out roughly as 12–4–3 to 1, and not 8 to 1, as the noble Lord suggested. I think it is likely that there will be three county council members and one county borough member from the old Cumberland area, with possibly 6 county council members and 6 county borough members from the old Lancashire River Board area. Now it is difficult to say what alteration to the membership would result if we were to withdraw the Southern boundary of the new river authority's area from the Ribble to the Lune. But I think the result might be that there would be something like 5 county council members and one county borough member from the old Cumberland area and 7 county council and 2 county borough members from the old Lancashire area—a proportion of 6 to 9.
I should only like to make two comments on this. The first is that, if we are going to count heads, I would suggest that the 4 could cope with the 12, especially as the 4 are from Cumberland, almost as well as the 6

1281
might be expected to cope with the 9. And in any event, it is, I suggest, absurd to think that all the people appointed by the Lancashire authorities will be insensitive grasping Philistines, even if they do live in towns. After all, many people in Lancashire who live in towns love the Lakes; and in any event most of the Lancashire River Board area is rural; pit includes two-thirds of Westmorland. I suggest, therefore, that the noble Lord really is making rather heavy weather over this aspect of representation.
Behind this question of representation lies, I am sure, a deep seated feeling that acceptance of a river authority such as we propose for the North-West will somewhat, but materially, effect the integrity of the National Park. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, himself put it at our Second Reading debate:
"It seems that you cannot add a substantial part to this area and still have your National Park."
I have tried to suggest that fears here on the score of representation are really rather exaggerated. But quite apart from that, I feel that I really must remind noble Lords once again that the real safeguard for amenity—the real protection for this National Park, and other National Parks, and, indeed, natural beauty as a whole, irrespective of whether it is found in a National Park—is to be found not here in this matter of representation, but rather in the whole system we are attempting to create by this Bill and the fact that the planning mechanism is designed to bite on that system.
I know that some noble Lords have been inclined to query the effectiveness of that amenity clause: the noble Lord. Lord Henley, stigmatised it as being "very weak". But I would remind noble Lords that when a similar section was inserted in 1957 in the Electricity Act it was warmly welcomed, and the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, referred to it in warm terms during an earlier stage of our Committee proceedings. That section in the Electricity Act is almost word for word what now stands in the Bill.
Again, the Bill makes it clear that local planning authorities, including joint planning boards such as we find in the Lake District National Park, will be alerted to matters affecting them—for example, to the all-important proposals for fixing minimum acceptable flows. And
1282
here may I remind your Lordships of two further points? First, in deciding minimum acceptable flows, river authorities and everyone else will have to pay due regard to the character of the river; and I have already undertaken, in response to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, to see whether we cannot specifically spell out that beauty is part of character. Secondly, I have already promised during our Committee stage to see whether we cannot write into the Bill further ways of improving liaison between the river authorities and the planning authorities, perhaps with particular reference to individual applications for abstraction licences affecting National Parks. Even if I were to concede to the noble Lord that he has a point on representation—and I do not concede that point, since I feel that his fears there are greatly exaggerated it would still seem to me that, even if his fears were valid, the defences of the Lake District are nevertheless still secured by these provisions in the Bill to which I have tried to draw your Lordships' attention.
It has been argued that there is little affinity between the Lake District and the Southern part of the Lancashire River Board area. When we were dealing two days ago with the proposed amalgamations in the North-East, I sought to argue that the basic unity of the area was recognisable as a whole, geographically, economically, in a sense even socially, administratively and, above all, hydrologically. The noble Lord will not expect me to argue that the same applies here. Of course we realise the special tang of rural Cumberland and Westmorland, and that enclave of Lancashire which stretches to the Lake District, and, indeed, the Lake District itself. Of course, we would agree that there is a marked difference between spending a Sunday on the top of Helvellyn and at the end of Wigan Pier. But in the respect which is most relevant to this Bill, namely, water resources, there is, I claim, affinity.
The upper part of the Ribble catchment extends northwards within a few miles of the Lune Valley; and the Ribble catchment already furnishes large water supplies and is potentially an important water-exporting area like the Lune Catchment and the Lake District itself. Surely this is what is really important here.

1283
"The thing that is really important is the conservation problem."
Those, I think, are very true words. But they are not mine: they are the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, during our Second Reading debate, and I would claim that from the point of view of conservation there is affinity, and indeed unity, from the hydrological standpoint within the river authority which we are proposing to create.
Again it has been argued that the combined area will be too large for efficient administration, especially in view of the poor communications in the Lake District. I think that those two arguments can be pushed too far. The combined area will be only fourth in size among river authorities. It will be fourth in its length of coastline, sixth in population and seventh in financial resources. It would therefore be wrong to claim—and I do not think the noble Lord claimed it—that even with this whole amalgamation the resulting river authority would be a giant among pygmies.
I also think that some of the travelling difficulties which would be imposed on the members of the river authority have perhaps been unduly emphasised. Anyone, of course, who has tried to drive up Shap behind a line of lorries in midwinter knows something of the difficulties of the area, but we should not exaggerate them. We all know how much is being done to improve road communications in the North-West. The Lancaster-Preston by-pass has already made a great difference, and the North-South communications will be materially improved by the M.6. This is only half the point. The other half is the noble Lord's acceptance that the dome of Lakeland. the rivers flowing North from it, and South from it, including the Lune catchment should in any case be brought within one authority. That means that even with the smaller authority he wishes, the headquarters will have to be either North or South of the hump. So, even with his proposals, one will still be faced with the real difficulty, which is getting over or through the hump in winter. I would suggest, too, that many of these difficulties could be overcome if the new authority were to set up a number of area committees. This is exactly what the two existing river boards do; and, to
1284
make certain that such committees can draw to the full on local knowledge, they will have the power of co-option under the provisions of the Bill as it stands.
May I, in conclusion—I am sorry to have detained your Lordships for so long, but I think this is an important point—briefly recapitulate my argument? We believe that the authority we propose is fully justified, for the basic reason that it will bring under the eye of one single authority all the potentially important sources of water supply in the North-West. We further believe that such an authority would meet the requirements of efficient land drainage and game fishing in this area better than the smaller authority advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Finally—and this is crucial—we believe that these advantages can be secured without any damage to the defences of one of the loveliest parts of England, the Lake District National Park.
4.56 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: I think the House, the North-West of England and all concerned in this matter will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the terms in which he brought forward his Amendment, and for the way in which he made his argument. For my part, I think his arguments were demolished in general, and in particular, so well by the Minister that it leaves little to say. Nevertheless, I feel that a Lancashire ex-Member of Parliament and, if there is such a thing, a Lancashire Peer, ought perhaps to go on record as supporting the noble Earl. One has also to remember that there may be further argument about this matter in another place. I will, therefore, briefly, and in three or four sentences, make some of the points—perhaps reiterate and repeat some—which have been made. This is an age of bigger organisation, of developing and larger organisation, matching modern transport and modern communications, and it is probably a better thing to have the bigger authority, rather than the two smaller ones. I would add to what the noble Earl said about communications that the main line from Euston to Scotland runs right through this district from South to North, and even when Shap is difficult to drive over, it is not always so difficult to go over by train. It is commonplace for county

1285
councillors to come down from the very north of Lancashire, which is on the bonder of Cumberland, to Preston to county council meetings, land they make no bother about it.
It has been said, not to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but certainly by his friends and supporters—and it has appeared in the local Press—that North Lancashire, the part I used to represent as Member of Parliament, or Lansdale, as we call it, rather wanted to go in with Cumberland and Westmorland in this matter and be separated from South Lancashire. May I, as the incumbent there for some twenty years, and one who still lives there from time to time and is closely in touch with North-West Lancashire, or the Lonsdale part, say that I am convinced from my inquiries—and they have been considerable—that that is wholly untrue. North Lancashire does not want to break its association with Central or South Lancashire in this matter or, indeed, in any other matter.
It has frequently been proposed in the past that Cumberland, Westmorland and North Lancashire should make some new organisation for some new purpose—perhaps even a new county council. But North Lancashire does not want that. It is just as proud of being Lancashire as Cumberland is of being Cumberland. It is very well aware how advantageous it is, as a rather poor farming district, to be supported, helped and aided by the extremely powerful Central and South Lancashire, with its very high rateable value. I think the Minister said that the financial weight in the centre or south might be 70 per cent. I think it is more likely to be 82½ per cent. in favour of the south, and the advantage of that is enjoyed by North Lancashire, and will be enjoyed under this proposal in the Bill by Cumberland and the whole of Westmorland. These financial advantages are very important.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, took a great deal of trouble to argue that it is a good thing to be poor, they could. nevertheless, he thought, just scrape up £500,000 if need be over the very long period for which they would have to borrow it, and they could also manage to do what was adequate. I am quite certain that those concerned in fisheries. those concerned in farming and in land drainage, would all say in North Lancashire
1286
that they would not wish to be parted from their old, rich and sturdy friends in the centre and the south. I can quite understand Cumberland and Westmorland men not wanting to come in with the new areas on the other side of the hump but I am sure they will find these Lancastrians very agreeable chaps, very pleasant to work with and that their particular view will be respected. I also agree with the Minister that the Cumberland, Westmorland and North Lancashire men (the Lake District men) will not in practice be out-voted or borne down upon by the Philistines from the south.
I have only one thing to add about the Manchester argument. I am glad that the Minister pointed out that this is not a Manchester versus the Lake District cause at all. Manchester is not in this. If it is then said in aid of that argument that Manchester sells some water to five units under the new proposed area, that is only a passing phase perhaps; it may well be before very long that the Central and South Lancashire area will be selling water to Manchester because there are quite considerable developments projected in the southern part of the present area which will be the southern part of the new area. But while it is true, as the Minister also said, that the thirsty millions in the South must be given water, it is not so true to think that the taking of water from the Lake District or, indeed, from any mountainous part of the land such as Wales is necessarily a desecration. Those oases that have already taken place have not in fact ruined valleys or ruined the beautiful parts of England and Wales; and, in any event, that is not going to be a matter within the power of this present authority. It is a much wider matter.
Finally, I have to add only this one last point. The Minister has already conceded that he is going to introduce an Amendment which will make it necessary in relevant matters for the Lake District, planning authority to be consulted and I think the High Peak one as well.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: That goes quite a long way towards giving the Lake District, as such, a rather special say in its own destiny in these matters. I yield to no one as a lover

1287
of the Lake District, nor are all lovers of the Lake District confined to the North-West or extreme North-West; but I do not fear for the Lake District in respect of its water conservation, its agricultural water and its fisheries by having the authority which is proposed in the Bill. I would think that North Lancashire, at any rate—which I know so well—would be very much less well served, very much weaker and very much impoverished if it were to be cut off from its rich friends in the south and joined to this tenuous and widespread though splendid area of Cumberland and Westmorland.
5.3 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: I rather suspect that the Committee has been convinced by the arguments so well put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about this matter. I know the area very well indeed, have lived there all my life, and I listened therefore with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had to say. I have considered the points he made and I did in fact have the advantage of hearing from him outside this Chamber yesterday something of what he had in mind, and I wanted to have the opportunity of considering it very carefully. I do not think he has made out his case. I think the Government are right, and I hope your Lordships will agree with the Government. I believe that the public interest is best served by the proposals under the Bill and not by the proposals of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
I might say that the Lancashire river board did not seek amalgamation with the Cumberland board, but they do think, and I agree with them, that such an amalgamation is in the interests of water conservation. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that all these rivers, the Ribble, the Hodder, the Wyre and the Lune, and so on, rise in the north Pennines and that the River Mersey does not. The River Mersey really is quite a different sort of river, and from the point of view of its own history I cannot help being sorry as well as glad for it. It has made a great contribution to the industry of this country but, of course, there are no fish in the Mersey and very little chance of there ever being fish again. The whole of its interests are separated, I believe, from the interests
1288
of the northern Lancashire rivers. I believe, therefore, that on the grounds of conservation it is right and on those of fishery it is right.
If I may say one word about finance—and this is Where land drainage comes in—I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that there is a large area in the north of Lancashire which is as flat as can be: the Fylde District. True, a great deal of Lancashire is very hilly; and that country is the country through which run the Ribble, Wyre, Hodder and the Lune. The Fylde is a large area of flat land which needs a lot of land drainage. I have some figures here with which the Lancashire river board have supplied me and I am going to quote only one so as not to be too tedious.
The part of the Board's area which the noble Lord seeks to take away from the Lancashire river board is very weak in financial resources, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said. In the current year the Lancashire river board's estimated net expenditure in that part of the area is £141,000, and against that the income from the general rate precept derived from the same part of the area is £56,000. So it will be seen that we are subsidising to a very large extent the work which is going on in that northern part of the area. From a purely selfish point of view one might say: why then do you object to this burden being removed from you and taken over by Cumberland? The truth is I do not believe that the Cumberland river board can sustain that burden and I think it is therefore much better to leave things as they are and to leave this strong river board which is able to support its weaker parts.
The only other point I want to mention is representation. I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, need not be too anxious. I can quite understand his attitude, but, so far as I can understand, the proportion of county council representatives would be greater than county borough representatives in the case of the authority proposed by the Government's Bill. That is one thing. Second, in the result, the county boroughs are likely to have only about a quarter of the seats on the proposed authority. In fact, two of those boroughs are in the area in which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is interested: so I do not

1289
think that representation on this board wild be purely urban or anything of that sort. The greater part of the area of the Lancashire river board is a beautiful rural area with some of the loveliest country in England, with some of the most beautiful parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and there are many of us in that part of the world who are just as anxious to preserve the amenities of the North-West as is the noble Lord.
5.10 p.m.
LORD FORSTER OF HARRABY: I came here to-day to support the Amendment which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. A good deal of water has flowed down the rivers since the Committee stage of this Bill began and I do not intend to add to the spate. I have heard with some measure of satisfaction the explanation Which the noble Earl has given as to why there has been a departure from the original proposals in the White Paper. He said in the course of his remarks that there was a sinister idea that Manchester was the instigator of the change. I think I ought to say that I am informed that it is quite true that there is a strong feeling in this northern area that some pressure must have been brought to bear to create a situation in which Lancashire would have such a preponderance of representation on the river authority that Manchester would be able to secure by the back door what it failed to secure by a Bill before your Lordships' House. Let me say at once that I do not for a moment suggest, nor do I believe, that Ministers would allow themselves to be so impressed, but I hope that among other things some steps will be taken to disabuse the minds of the people of what I believe to be quite an erroneous conclusion.
The noble Earl has said that with relation to representation there will be some disparity between the representation for Cumberland and that for Lancashire on the river authority, but he went on to say that of course four Cumbrians were equal to six Lancastrians. As a Cumbrian, I am inclined to agree with him. But I hope something will be done to disabuse the minds of Cumbrians that they are having a raw deal. I do not want to go into the merits; they have already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. But I am bound
1290
to confess that I have received a measure of satisfaction from the explanations which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has given to the House.
LORD HENLEY: I am afraid I have not got quite as much support for my Amendment as I hoped. I must thank the noble Earl for the most fair and lucid way in which he has answered all my points. I said at the end of my own observations that there may be thought to be certain aspects of my argument which were not as good as others, but, in spite of that, the general considerations outweighed any weaknesses. I still feel that the general considerations also outweigh a great many of the noble Earl's arguments, which equally are not quite so sound as they should be, and I rather suspect he feels that himself. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, said that my arguments had been demolished by the noble Earl. I do not think that is quite true. They can hardly have been demolished by the noble Earl; otherwise the White Paper would never have thought on the same lines as those on which I have been thinking. The fact is that this is so nicely balanced a problem that the arguments really tie up on either side, and one can make a decision only on what one feels outweighs the weak points. I feel that my weak points are outweighed by the consideration of the Lakeland having control of its own affairs. The noble Earl feels that other considerations are more important. I am to some extent satisfied because I think much the strongest of his arguments is about water conservation, and this is a Bill about water conservation, so I am happier there.
So far as land drainage is concerned I think his arguments are weak. My point is that we can do all that is necessary or desirable to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, indicated that by a terrible struggle we could do just enough to keep the Ministry of Agriculture from chasing us to do more. I thought I demonstrated that we could do enough and showed an amount of money necessary to do all the required drainage work, and to do more would be extravagant. So far as his arguments on fisheries were concerned, frankly, I think they were worse than weak. I am sure that the Mersey could

1291
very easily set up an authority which could do everything that was required as far as game fish are concerned.
I am not 100 per cent. satisfied about the revised figures that he works out for representation. He was kind enough to say that he thought four Cumbrians could be equal to eight Lancastrians. We know that without saying, but whether they will really be able to hold their own I do not know. Again he fell back, for the amenity question, on Clause 93 and says it was acceptable in the case of the other Bill, the Electricity Bill. I am far from happy here, and feel that in the last resort Parliament must have control and not the Minister; it must be Parliamentary control which decides these amenities, and it may possibly be a good thing to think of some means to devise that. I still think Clause 93 is weak and that Clause 28 (I think it is) which also deals with the same matter is not very much better. On the question of affinity and administrative convenience, frankly I do not think there is much in my argument or his. Anybody can administer any area reasonably well if he sets his mind to it. I do not think this matters very much.
On balance I am still not wholly convinced. I should still like to reserve the right to raise this subject, possibly at Report stage. I am not sure how one sets about these things, but possibly that might be the way, or alternatively it might be left to be raised again in another place. I cannot say that I withdraw my Amendment happily, because the assurances I hoped I was going to get from the Minister that he would think about it again were not forthcoming. Frankly, I am disappointed, and also I am sorry I have not had the support I believed I might get on this matter. But in view of the feeling of the Committee, I have no alternative, while reservin5, my right to raise it at some subsequent stage, but to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: Before the noble Lord finally withdraws the Amendment, could I thank him once again for the very moderate and reasoned way in which he has presented his case? I would add that I hope he did not think anything I was saying was meant in any way to reflect upon the way the Cumberland
1292
River Board are at present discharging their land drainage function. That was not at all my intention. But I thought it might help their authority if they could draw upon the larger resources.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.20 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL moved, to leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new Schedule.

" RIVER AUTHORITIES

No

Names of River Authorities

River Board Areas

1.

The Northumbrian River Authority.

The Northumberlandand Tyneside River Board area and the Wear and Tees River Board area.

2.

The Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority.

T
The Hull and East Yorkshire River Board area and the Yorkshire Ouse River Board area.

3.

The Trent and Lincolnshire River Authority.

The Trent River Board area and the Lincolnshire River Board area.

4.

The Great Ouse,Welland & Nene River Authority.

The Great Ouse River Board area, the Welland River Board area and the Nene River Board area.

5.

The East Suffolk, Norfolk, & Essex River Authority.

The East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board area and the Essex River Board area.

6.

The Kent River Authority.

The Kent River Board area.

7.

The Sussex and Hampshire River Authority.

The East Sussex River Board area, the West Sussex River Board area, the Hampshire River Board area, and the Isle of Wight River Board area.

8.

The Dorset & Somerset River Authority.

The Avon and Dorset River Board area, the Bristol Avon River Board area and the Somerset River Board area.

9.

The Devon and Cornwall River Authority.

The Devon River Board area and the Cornwall River Board area.

10.

The Severn and Wye River Authority.

The Severn River Board area and the Wye River Board area.

11.

The South Wales River Authority.

The Usk River Board area, the Glamorgan River Board area and the South-West Wales River Board area.

12.

The Dee, Clwyd and Gwynedd River Authority.

The Dee and Clwyd River Board area and the Gwynedd River Board area.

No.

Names of River Authorities

River Board Areas

13.

The Mersey, Weaver and Ribble River Authority.

The Mersey River Board area, the Cheshire River Board area and the part of the Lancashire River Board area, south of the catchment area of the river Lune.

14.

The Lune, Lakes and Eden River Authority.

The Cumberland River Board area and the remaining part of the Lancashire River Board area."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete Schedule 1 and substitute what is, in my opinion, a better and more realistic Schedule. In my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill I suggested that there were too many river authorities, and if proposals for conservation were to be effective there must be a simple procedure for transferring water from one river basin to another. I maintained, and I still maintain, that fewer river authorities properly grouped would provide a much more efficient machine. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve last Tuesday supporting this view. In his speech he said that we must aim for a small, or relatively small, number of river authorities, and he emphasised the advantages from the point of view of efficient staffing.
In his winding up speech on Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that it would be wrong for him to comment in any detail on particular amalgamation proposals. He and his colleagues have had ample opportunity in the last two or three days to do that. The Schedule which I have suggested is the result of a great deal of study by the F.B.I. The Minister may not be prepared to accept the whole list, but it may give him some ideas. Take, for example, the recommended amalgamation of the Wye and Severn River Boards. This suggestion is supported by the Report on the Water Resources of Wales published in April, 1960, and prepared by the Welsh Advisory Water Committee. Here is an example of a responsible committee recommending that the resources of two existing river boards should be considered together in the wide context of water conservation, river regulation and possibly allocation of resources. I suggest that this principle
1294
should be extended on a similar basis for the rest of England and Wales.
I do not expect the Minister to accept my suggested Schedule, and I will not weary the Committee by trying to justify each proposal for amalgamation which I have put forward—in fact, I could not do so because I have neither the technical nor the local knowledge, but I think the F.B.I. can claim to have both. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is already on record as stating that he would have preferred 20 river authorities to the 26 provided in Schedule 1 of this Bill. This is encouraging and shows that at least he is thinking on the right lines. I fully realise his difficulties: he has to be tender with local interests, and he will certainly have to go slowly to achieve the Schedule which I have put forward. He has his powers under Clause 10 to make a start at any time after the passing of this Bill, and I should welcome some assurance that he will not be forgetful of these powers. This is not a wrecking Amendment; it is rather more what I would call a fishing Amendment, in order to elicit a statement of policy on this important question as to whether Her Majesty's Government are really in favour of bigger and better authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Jessel.)
5.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE had given Notice of three Amendments to the proposed new Schedule—namely, in No. 5, column 1, to leave out "Norfolk & Essex" and to insert "and Norfolk", and in column 2 to leave out "and the Essex River Board area"; after No. 5, to insert

"The Essex River Authority

The Essex River Board area."

and to leave out Nos. 12 and 13 and insert:

"12. The Gwynedd, Dee, Mersey and Ribble River Authority.

The Dee and Clwyd River Board area, the Gwynedd River Board area, the Mersey River Board area, the Cheshire River Board area, and that part of the Lancashire River Board area which is south of the catchment area of the River Lune".

The noble Earl said: The Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jessel is couched exactly on the lines that lie within my hopes, and I rather thought that the

1295
Federation of British Industries were of the same mind. Of course we had the ample benefit of Lord Fleck's views, he having more experience than most people, I suppose, of organisation. You cannot overburden seven eminent men on the Water Resources Board by 26 problems. They cannot carry them in mind any more than the commanding officer can carry in mind the affairs of 64 platoons. You must get down to small numbers. It was our great friend Sir Winston, I think in 1940, who suddenly thrust upon England his plan for twelve regions. They were eventually put into force by having regional ministerial offices scattered around the country, and it saved a great deal of trouble. Here we have 14, and if the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is trying to squeeze them into a smaller number he will find that hard to do, although no doubt we should all wish to be gifted with some imagination which would show how to do it.
Although in the existing Schedule 1 Essex sits by itself, in Lord Jessel's new Schedule he has yoked it together with Norfolk and Suffolk. I assure the noble Lord that Norfolk and Suffolk are a quite big enough area for members to get to and from a meeting in one day. It is 50 miles North and South, and 60 miles East and West; and even if the river authority met alternately in Ipswich and Norwich we should not be capable of doing our duty better if we had Essex added to us. I want to make quite sure that Essex is left in isolation until certain matters have been settled in Parliament about the future of London government, and also, I am told, about the Metropolitan Water Board. I suggest that Essex had better remain in isolation until, by an order under Clause 10, she can be put where she wants to go. After all, she is anxious to go somewhere, because for some months now she has been in co-existence with a neighbouring authority, and I am sure that they and we should like to see a marriage solemnised by an amount of water coming from the Thames, through a tunnel from the Metropolitan Water Board. This could help Essex, which has been sitting under the ceiling of her requirements for so long that she cannot bear not to receive fresh supplies any longer.
I want now to say a word about a great hope I have that Nos. 23, 24
1296
and 25 in Schedule 1 to the Bill can be amalgamated. I know that the Westerly division, the Gwynedd area, is quite satisfied with remaining this side of the Welsh mountains and all I have to say about that is that we have to realise that we are talking not so much about rivers (though certainly we are talking about rivers receiving regulating streams from hilltop reservoirs) as about hilltops that have a rainfall of six inches to one side of the watershed and six inches to the other side, and it will go down a different way. Therefore, in future, we shall have to think of hilltops. They belong to the joint projects put up by the many river authorities.
For this reason I desire the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to let us have Gwynedd joined to the counties of Den-high and Flint, which throw out their waters from Bala Lake (which is a regulating reservoir), down the Dee, 60 miles to the point where Chester takes its water supply, from which point the water goes on and fructifies Liverpool and parts of Birkenhead. That shows what modern methods of dealing with rivers—or shall we call them channels?—can produce. I said just now that I hoped that disused channels and uneconomic canals could also help to make the water flow in the desired direction. My Amendment proposes a Gwynedd, Dee, Mersey and Ribble River Authority. I did not know whether to put in the reference to the Ribble country, or whether to leave it out. I see now, having heard my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that it will come out. My great desire is to see the Mersey and Cheshire Council come in together with their backs, not to the wall, but to the Derbyshire hills, which are insufficiently explored and exploited. I want those great territories to come together for their mutual benefit.
I think I must say a few words as to why some boards wish to remain as they are. One must remember that most boards are larger than county councils, so that attendance at meetings means covering as many miles, there and back, as a busy person can manage in a day. Therefore, for central meetings of the finance committee, the general purposes committee, or the water resources committee to discuss storage and also regulated flow projects, four delegates, say, from each river authority sub-committee would seem to be a reasonable

1297
procedure. Ought we not to be sympathetic to the attitude of river authority members who up to now have administered river plain or valley matters and who have not hitherto been consulted with regard to hilltop storage or the transfer of water from one catchment to another? To the central rendezvous would come one of the seven advisory members, with his consultant engineers and geologist. Viewing the absolute need for agglomeration of erstwhile river board areas on these lines, your Lordships can see why I desire to see the North Wales counties linked up with the gathering grounds of the Derbyshire hills, and also with those parts of the West Riding and Lancashire Counties abutting on to the Derbyshire hills. I beg to move the first of my three Amendments to the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
In No. 5, column 1, leave out ("Norfolk & Essex") and insert ("and Norfolk"), and in column 2, leave out ("and the Essex River Board area").—(The Earl of Albemarle.)
5.33 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: I take it that at this stage I shall not be prevented from saying a word or two on the main issue, as well as on the Amendment to the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. It seems to me—and I say this with due respect—that if the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, can accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, I think he is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. There is a case for the proposal put up by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and if one were starting afresh with only the problem of water conservation to consider one could understand that case. If there had not been a case, my noble friend Lord Lindgren (who has on more than one occasion indicated a preference for this particular organisation) would not have been prepared to add his weight to it. But Lord Jessel indicated, quite rightly and fairly, that he has no knowledge of the geographical and other problems involved in his Amendment. If he had, I think that he would not have proposed, as he has in one instance, the amalgamation of two areas in one of which the language is predominantly Welsh and in the other English.
As I think I have previously said, the River Boards' Association have carefully
1298
refrained from entering into any controversy in regard to the grouping or amalgamation of different river boards. I feel that that was the right attitude to adopt, and, as I have also previously mentioned, I have the honour of being, with the noble Earl, one of the vice-presidents of the Association. As an Association they feel that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, strikes right at the root of good administration as things are to-day. Since their establishment it has been the experience of all river boards that for the proper performance of their function as land drainage authorities, and to a lesser extent their functions in relation to fisheries and pollution prevention, it is essential that they should be sufficient in numbers and so dispersed over the area for which they are responsible as to provide adequate local knowledge of every separate locality. By this means alone can the needs of any particular district be presented to the board and a proper appraisal of the competing requirements of the localities be made.
It is submitted that the amalgamations proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, are not based on any considered views and would undoubtedly give rise to considerable administrative difficulties. The area of the authorities would be of such a size that the amount of time spent in travelling from one part to another would be excessive. There would be no identity of interest between members of the different areas, and the members of the authority would never be able to familiarise themselves with the varying local problems. The amalgamations as proposed in the Amendment are, in the view of the Association, ill-conceived.
If experience shows that any amalgamations in addition to those proposed in the Bill are required, I take it that even the proposed set-up will not be the final word in the days to come, as experience develops on the science of water conservation. When those rare birds which we have heard so much about get to work, I do not know how the Minister is going to catch them. Is he going to put salt on their tails, or feed them with golden grain; or how is he going to catch these rare birds that he has been talking about? But when we get experience, the Minister of the day will no doubt be able to convince Parliament

1299
and the river boards that perhaps further amalgamations may be necessary.
We have been told that these proposed amalgamations are the result of very prolonged study by the two Ministries, and they come forward to us as a compromise in the existing circumstances. Far those reasons, while realising that if we were starting de novo there would be a case for what is in the Amendment, in the present-day circumstances perhaps we had better proceed step by step. I hope in those circumstances that both Amendments will be rejected by your Lordships.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend Lord Jellicoe replies, I wonder whether I might ask him one question in respect of this large number of reorganisations proposed by my noble friends Lord Jessel and Lord Albemarle. It seemed to me, when we were discussing my Amendment on Tuesday, that all these things are governed almost entirely by fact and detail in each particular case. For all I know, some of these suggested Amendments may in due course be possible, and some may be absolutely impossible. But where is the initiative going to come from? Is it going to be the Minister's business as from the moment this Bill passes and becomes law, to start seeing whether he may effect, some amalgamations; is the initiative going to be left in the first instance with the new river authorities; is the Water Resources Board going to do it, or is it going to be a joint effort? In any event, I understand that the Minister would like to see more amalgamations, but how does he suppose these are actually going to come about?
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: In reference to that last remark, may I express the hope that in practice the Water Resources Board will have a very considerable degree of initiative? I think that is inherent in the whole conception of this Bill as I understand it. I hate to be repetitious at this late hour, and I will not delay the House for more than a moment, but I have indicated before—and I still believe there is a great deal to be said for it—that if we were to approach this problem by first appointing a Water Resources Board to make their plans,
1300
without deciding definitely on the precise borders in which these new river authorities will be established until we have had a study by the Water Resources Board, that would seem to me to make a great deal of sense.
I am in favour in principle, as the Committee know, of a smaller rather than a larger number of river authorities, but I think there is great merit in learning by experience and not necessarily appointing all river authorities—whether or not it be 26 as it is now—at the same time.
LORD HASTINGS: I think we should deal straight away with the two Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, before coming to the general Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jessel. Of course, in respect of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle, his first one refers to Norfolk and East Suffolk and is simply putting back into the Bill what is already there in the Government proposals, leaving North and East Suffolk together and Essex on its own. I might just very briefly read the reasons, which will be an answer to my noble friend Lord Jessel at the same time, why we agree with that particular Amendment, and why it is already in the Bill. There are still resources of water in the chalk in Norfolk remaining to be exploited, and Essex is already reaching the stage where indigenous resources are fully exploited. The problems of the two areas are quite different. Essex is an area of fast population growth, and is nearly wholly bound up with Greater London. Its future water supplies inevitably will be brought in from the West, from the Thames and Lee areas. East Suffolk and Norfolk, on the other hand, have different problems and any future imports of water are more likely to come via the Great Ouse area than via Essex. Also, of course, there is the very serious problem of sea defences. As both my noble friends know, East Anglia, Norfolk and Suffolk are particularly subject to flooding; and really two separate organisations as now exist are highly desirable. That is why the proposal of my noble friend, Lord Jessel to amalgamate those two would not really be acceptable.
As for the second Amendment of the noble Earl, he really had some rather exciting ideas and was looking forward to an area stretching from Aberystwyth

1301
in the South to Blackpool in the North, and as far as the West Riding of Yorkshire. No doubt he had the idea, as I think he made plain, that the areas of supply and demand, of relative poverty and riches, should be merged. But while there is something to be said in favour of that, this Amendment really goes too far and would, I am afraid, offend a lot of authorities and interests, national and otherwise. As the noble Lord, Lord Burden, pointed out, half of that enormous area is in Wales and that could lead to great complications of representation. But of course, apart from that, the way of meeting the point of the poverty of the exporting area is that the importer pays, and that is one of the basic principles of the Bill and of the system of charging. Therefore, that Amendment would not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
With that brief introduction I will now, if I may, come to the main Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Jessel. Here I was interested to note that he did not repeat the argument which had been made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Fleck, and which I think rather came out in his own speech when he was moving an Amendment to strike out Clause 6 on the constitution of river authorities. That was a certain fear of domination by agricultural interests, and rural interests in general, which would interfere with the rights of industry and also with the efficiency of management. Of course, I did on that occasion explain very fully why Her Majesty's Government were unable to accept the Majority Report of the Proudman Committee in respect of the membership of the river authorities, the number to be on each river authority. The noble Lord will remember my reply, that it is necessary to give adequate representation to all interests including local authorities. But he will also remember, I hope, that I stoutly resisted all attempts to increase that representation even further, in a manner which might well have favoured rural interests against industrial ones, because there were many Amendments moved to increase representation which Her Majesty's Government resisted.
In moving this Amendment my noble friend did rely a great deal on the efficiency factor. He talked of the
1302
efficiency of staffing arrangements, Which is admittedly a very strong point, and of the ease of transfer of water from one area to another, which again is of course a strong point in his favour. But of course we cannot rely only on the efficiency factor. While I recognise fully the sincerity of the noble Lord's proposals and sympathise with his approach—and, indeed, he reminded my noble friend Lord Jellicoe that he had said that he would perhaps have preferred to see 20 river board areas instead of 26—nevertheless, we have to remember that the new functions are not the only ones to be considered, and that the same authority must manage all aspects of the use of water in the national interest. This means that they have to be responsible not only for conservation but also far land drainage, flood prevention, control of pollution and fisheries administration. Therefore, some modification of the ideal pattern for the conservation of water was found to be necessary, and necessary, really, on grounds of efficiency as much as anything else.
I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, made in that context was well made, because he pointed out that in many areas, possibly in most areas, it is essential to have local administration of not only fisheries but, particularly, land drainage. I think the most interesting point came out in our previous discussion earlier to-day on fisheries, when this matter was discussed in connection with the Ribble and the Lune. The point there was that if the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had been accepted, the fishery interests would have suffered very badly because those two rivers had been split. It points very strongly to the importance of retaining local and homogeneous administration in these respects. As the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said, compromise, of course, was found to be necessary, even on technical grounds, because the engineering experts, although they are going to be very important, are not the only people concerned. We have to consider the statutory bodies, the public utilities, the local authorities, the farmers, the fishermen and all the other abstracters—and, of course, the interests of amenity and the public in general.

1303
Before I say my final word, I would just turn to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and say that, of course, he really got a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, but the whole organisation has to settle down over a period. All the surveys have to be made—I think 1969 was actually mentioned—before we get the full charging scheme based on minimum flows. Clearly, we could hardly expect any amalgamation before that, but in the light of experience it would be for the Water Resources Board, after everything is going smoothly, to make recommendations, or for the Minister to ask for ideas. It might even be that various river boards might consider that they would like to come together and make suggestions; but that would be the procedure. I do not know that I can really fall into my noble friend Lord Jessel's fishing net and give any undertaking as to the precise Government policy for larger, bigger and better river authorities. Bigger does not always mean better—let us remember that.
Therefore, as my last word, I would say that this Bill has been a compromise. As the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said, I think it has really been a very effective compromise; and, as this is the last opportunity I shall have of thanking noble Lords for the remarkable spirit of compromise they have shown, and for the great help that Her Majesty's Government and certainly I personally have received from all sides of the House, I should just like to say that I hope we shall continue in this spirit right through to the end, including this Amendment, and that my noble friend Lord Jessel will feel that he has made his point and will meet us now as he has done previously in the Bill.
LORD JESSEL: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. As I said, I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. It was a fishing Amendment, and I got very small fish as an answer, I must say. There is just one more thing I should like to say. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, said that my suggestions were not based on considered views. He may not have liked the suggestions, but I assure him that they were based on considered views, and very carefully considered views. Nevertheless, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AIREDALE): The Question before the Committee is, That Lord Albemarle's, first Amendment to Amendment No. 132 be agreed to.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I should just like to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings said that he could not agree to it because of what the Welsh would say. Surely the noble Lord has read the Welsh Advisory Commission's Report on the whole of the water resources of Wales, where they continually refer with glee to the amount of water that Wales is able to sell to England, and where they not only recommend the amalgamation of the Wye and Severn but also continually hope that an even greater amount of surplus water can be found from Wales to help England in the course of the few years during which it will be necessary to build those upriver reservoirs. Therefore, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, would have welcomed my idea of adding such a strong support to the water requirements of Chester and Mersey. Could he please explain how he fails to see that point of view?
LORD HAWKE: Has not the Amendment been withdrawn? Can we discuss an Amendment to an Amendment which has already been withdrawn?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have not heard the noble Earl withdraw it.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment now. I will not move the others.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Pensions (Increase),

Expiring Laws Continuance,

Foreign Compensation,

Air Corporations,

Coal Industry,

1305

Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland),

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation,

Paisley Corporation Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
6.14 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD JESSEL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule:
Provisions as to river authorities
11.—(1) Every river authority shall appoint a finance committee for regulating and controlling the finance of the authority.
LORD LINDGREN LORD LINDGREN moved to add to paragraph 11 (1):
"and a water resources committee for regulating and managing the exercise of the new functions of the authority".
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I would take Amendment No. 136 with this one. After the discussion we have had of a geographical nature, this Amendment is a change. Paragraph 11 (1) makes provision for the setting up by river authorities of a finance committee. My Amendment suggests that they should also be required by Statute to set up a water resources committee. The river boards are already in existence and already have finance committees. Under this Bill, they will have the added functions of water conservation and onerous responsibilities in regard to the provision of supplies to abstracters of all kinds. Therefore it would seem that if we require by Statute the setting up of a finance committee, there should also be set up a committee for these new functions. In addition, my second Amendment suggests that on the water resources committee should be represented the interests that are associated with abstraction—the statutory
1306
water undertakers, industry and agriculture. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lindgren.)
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, wishes to have a special water resources committee, but Her Majesty's Government feel that the river authority ought to be allowed to determine how it is going to organise its affairs. It may consider that some of its affairs are best dealt with on the basis of area committees and to have others dealing with policy. Again, it may wish to reserve some matters, including some or all of those affecting its new functions, for determination by the authority as a whole. To require the authority to have a separate committee to be concerned only with the new functions would be likely, in our opinion, to lead to a separation, physically and mentally, between its functions and to a growth of conflicting bodies of opinion.
The aim of the Government, as I have said in previous Amendments, is to see fully integrated authorities, with all members conscious of and understanding the needs and points of view of the varying interests upon which the authorities' interests impinge. We want to see land drainage experts participating in discussions on abstraction and minimum acceptable flows and experts in problems of public water supply considering problems arising on fisheries and the prevention of pollution. We want all-round ability, not just expert knowledge of one particular aspect. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will not feel that we are being narrow or mean on this matter. We feel that it will be better if the river authorities order their own business to suit the varying circumstances which they will find in different areas, and get on with the job in the manner they think most efficient.
LORD LINDGREN: I thank the noble Lord for the reply, but all be said could have been said about the setting up of the finance committee in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 11. Had sub-paragraph (1) not been in paragraph 11 there would have been no argument, because subparagraph (2) perhaps gives the authority for them all. It seemed to me that if we were going to instruct them to set

1307
up a finance committee we might instruct them about something else. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: In this Amendment the point we seek to establish is quite a simple one—namely, that in a case where an interest under Clause 6 (3) is represented by not more than one member appointed by the Minister or Ministers that member should have the same kind of power to appoint an alternate as have the Coal Board under the clause in the Bill to which this Amendment relates. In framing the Amendment it was pointed out that if that applied so far as the Coal Board were concerned and it applied also to other interests defined in Clause 6 (3), then the occasional case where the Ministry of Transport might be similarly represented should also be covered. The principle is quite simple, and I hope that the Government will agree that where an interest requires to be represented on the river authority by not more than one member, provision should be made for an alternate, so that decisions are not taken without that interest having an opportunity of expressing its view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 39, after ("Board") insert ("any additional member appointed by the Minister of Transport under section 8 (3) of this Act and (in a case in which not more than one member has been appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister, as the case may be, under paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 6 (3) of this Act) a member so appointed").—(Lord Sinclair of Cleeve.)
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I should like to support the Amendment that has been so clearly moved by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. It seems to me to be quite simple, and I hope the Government will feel that this will be an addition to the Bill which will make it a little better. If there is a case for a special member, whether he be a special member of the National Coal Board in the two particular areas, the Yorkshire Ouse and the Hull River Authority, in Clause 8 (2) of the Bill, or whether he be a special member for transport under subsection (3), or whether under Clause 6 (3) the special member who has to be
1308
skilled in land drainage, fisheries, agriculture, public water supply or industry, it seems to me only common sense that there should be a provision for an alternate to be available so that if that special member has the flu or suddenly dies the special interest should be represented when the committee are deliberating.
LORD ST. OSWALD: The two noble Lords, the mover and the supporter of this Amendment, have both spoken with admirable brevity and clarity. I am afraid that I shall have to take slightly more time than they have, lamentable as it may be, because although they have both described the point as a simple one it does not seem to us quite as simple in practice as it seems to them in theory.
At present, there are two river boards only to which the National Coal Board appoint a member, and it is upon these two cases that they have based their case; that is, the Trent River Board and the Yorkshire Ouse River Board. Those two members perform the useful and important function of keeping the river board aware of Coal Board activities likely to affect land drainage, in particular—and obviously mining resulting in subsidence may give rise almost overnight to new land drainage problems of great difficulty—and of keeping the National Coal Board authorities for the area aware of the activities, plans and needs of the river board. Where, perhaps—and I say "perhaps" advisedly—this differs in detail from other interests that the noble Lords had in mind is that it concerns the day-to-day functions of the river boards and in future the river authorities.
I live in one of the two areas, the Yorkshire Ouse River Board area. I should not like to be accused on that account of taking up a dog-in-the-manger attitude, but essentially this is representation of a technical character and for limited technical purposes. Therefore, one sees the appropriateness of providing, as the River Boards Act does, for this particular member of the board to nominate someone to attend in his stead. In practice, another person from the same department of the Coal Board organisation will attend to make available to the hoard this particular sort of technical advice when the principal appointee is unable to be there.

1309
The provision of the River Boards Act, 1948, on this matter is re-enacted in paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of this Bill, and it is this provision which the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to supplement.
Before turning to the merits of the Amendment, may I further remind the Committee of another point in relation to the membership of river boards. It is that the Act of 1948 provides that where the river board exercises, or is about to exercise, navigation functions, the Minister of Transport may appoint someone to represent these interests as an additional member of the board. This provision would be applied only where navigation interests were of sufficient importance to justify it. This is one member it is a representative appointment of the same nature as those made to represent fishery and drainage interests, and there is no provision for a substitute to attend instead of the person appointed.
I hope that I have said enough to bring to your Lordships' minds two points. First, there is no standard practice in these matters at the moment, and precedent does not give us any clear answer to the question. The National Coal Board appointment affects only two special areas. Secondly, the nearer precedent available in this context of Ministerial appointments—that is, the navigation member on river boards—includes no arrangement for an alternative member.
All the same, I would not argue with my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve that this can be dismissed by reference to this particular precedent. It is perfectly true that the characteristics of a river authority area might lead the Ministers in constituting the authority, after consultation with the interests concerned, to conclude that the correctly proportioned membership should include only one person with a particular qualification. And certainly if that member were unable to attend, the voice of that particular sort of experience would not be heard. My noble friend has described this as a matter of principle, and it would be wrong of me to dismiss such a matter lightly, even though that principle is at the moment founded in practice on two cases.
I accept that there is something here which would bear further examination
1310
and consideration, but the matter is not without its difficulties. It is not possible for me to say at this stage whether the Government will feel able to introduce some alteration to the Bill on this score. Doubt, I think, must certainly be felt about the proposition in the Amendment that the Minister appointee should nominate his own substitute. In the constitution of joint water boards, provision is customarily made, in orders made under Section 9 of the Water Act, 1945, for alternative representations, and it is the appointed local authority which nominates both the representative and his deputy. It would not, I think, be easy for the Minister to appoint a second string on this basis. But this is a problem which might well succumb to further examination, and I need not detain the Committee further on this point. As I have said, the Government are willing to examine it further, and if my noble friend is able to see his way clear to withdraw his Amendment, that consideration can and will be given.
6.32 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I thank the noble Lord very much for the detailed reply he has given to this Amendment. I had not anticipated that there were so many difficulties. Dealing with the last point first, I am sure the principle would be perfectly adequately met—if the Government find it suitable for adoption—if the alternate member were appointed with the agreement of the Minister concerned. The principle is to endeavour to ensure that the river authority should not take any decisions of importance which could conceivably affect any of the interests required to be represented there unless that interest was represented when the decisions were taken. That is the essence of the whole matter. We did not base the Amendment on the Coal Board, but we used this clause for the purpose of inclusion in the Bill because it seemed the only convenient place at which it could be introduced. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that the Government will consider the principles involved in this, and with that assurance I gladly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, reserving to myself the right to raise the matter again on the Report stage if the Government decision should not be favourable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agree to.
Schedule 6 [Procedure Relating to Statements of Minimum Acceptable Flows]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add to the Schedule:

PART III
Procedure for purposes of section 21
14. The provisions of Part I of this Schedule, except paragraph 1 thereof, shall have effect with respect to any draft statement submitted to the Minister under section 21 (1) of this Act, subject to the following modifications:—

(a) except in paragraph 9 of this Schedule, any reference to the river authority, unless the reference is to the river authority area, shall be construed as a reference to the Water Resources Board;

(b) in paragraph 9 of this Schedule, the first reference to the river authority shall be construed as a reference to the Water Resources Board and the second such reference shall be construed as a reference to the river authority and the Board;

(c) the river authority shall be included among the bodies on whom, under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, a copy of the notice is required to be served.

15.—(1) This paragraph applies to any proposals of the Minister for amending a statement in accordance with section 21 (3) of this Act.
(2) The Minister shall give notice of the proposals to the river authority; and the river authority shall publish such a notice as the Minister may require—

(a) stating the general effect of the proposals;

(b) specifying a place in the river authority area where a copy of the proposals and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times during the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the date of first publication of the notice; and

(c) stating that any person may within that period, by notice in writing to the Minister, object to the amendment, in accordance with the proposals, of the statement of minimum acceptable flows to which the proposals relate.

(3) Paragraphs 3 to 6 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to any proposals to which this paragraph applies as they have effect in relation to a draft statement within the meaning of Part I of this Schedule, subject to the modification that in paragraph 5, for the words 'draft statement has been submitted to', there shall he substituted the words 'proposals have been prepared by'.
(4) Paragraphs 11 to 13 of this Schedule shall have effect with respect to any proposals to which this paragraph applies, subject to
1312
the modification that any reference to the proposals as submitted to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the proposals as prepared by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: This drafting Amendment was anticipated by Government Amendments in Clause 21 (1) and (3) which introduced into those subsections references to Part III of Schedule 6. Neither paragraph 14, nor paragraph 15 of this new Part III makes any change of substance in the procedures. All the changes made are necessary by reason of the fact that action is being taken not by a river authority but by the Water Resources Board, which is referred to in paragraph 14, or by the Minister, which is dealt with in paragraph 15. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 118, line 4, at end insert the said Part III.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.