WATER RESOURCES BILL

HL Deb 20 December 1962 vol 245 cc1266-304

4.5 p.m.

House again in Committee.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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.