HL Deb 21 February 1963 vol 246 cc1487-513

5.38 p.m.

Further considered on Report (according to Order).

making this change. I can assure your Lordships that not only was this change thought about in 1948, and in 1961, but it has been thought about now. We believe that it will lead to the efficiency of the administration on which a great deal depends if we are to make progress; that it will certainly not lead to any diminution of the humane treatment that your Lordships want to see adopted and exercised in relation to those who come within the sphere of penal treatment. It is for those reasons that we believe that it is right to press forward with this reform.

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Dilhorne, L. (L. Chancellor.) Ironside, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Dormer, L. Jellicoe, E.
Ampthill, L. Dundee, E. Lothian, M.
Auckland, L. Ebbisham, L. Luke, L.
Bethell, L. Effingham, E. Mar and Kellie, E.
Bossom, L. Elliot of Harwood, B. Merrivale, L.
Boston, L. Ferrers, E. Merthyr, L.
Brocket, L. Furness, V. Newall, L.
Chelmer, L. Goddard, L. Newton, L.
Chesham, L. Goschen, V. [Teller.] Rockley, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Grenfell, L. St. Oswald, L.
Cottesloe, L. Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Somers, L.
Craigton, L. Hastings, L. Soulbury, V.
Craven, E. Hawke, L. Strang, L.
Croft, L. Horsbrugh, B. Stuart of Findhorn, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Howard of Glossop, L. Suffield, L.
Derwent, L. Iddesleigh, E. Waleran, L.
Devonshire, D.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Listowel, E. Silkin, L.
Amulree, L. Longford, E. Stonham, L.
Burden, L. Moynihan, L, Summerskill, B
Champion, L. Peddie, L. Swanborough, B
Chorley, L. [Teller.] Rea, L. Taylor, L.
Exeter, L. Bp. Robertson of Oakridge, L. Walston, L.
Henley, L. [Teller.] Shepherd, L. Williams, L.
Kenswood, L.

Schedule 1 [River Authorities]:

LORD HENLEY moved to omit the reference to the proposed new Lancashire and Cumberland River Authority and to substitute:

"26. The Lancashire River Authority The Lancashire River Board area except the catchment areas of the rivers, Duddon, Kent and Leven.
27. The Lakeland River Authority The Cumberland River Board area and the catchment areas of the rivers Duddon, Kent and Leven."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a different Amendment from the one I moved during Committee stage, but is designed towards the same end: namely, to try to get a Lakeland authority. We feel that a Lakeland authority is a very much better proposal than that in the Bill because it prevents this great National Park from being put in jeopardy. The Amendment which I moved in Committee sought to go back to the White Paper—that is to say, to make a Lakeland authority with that part of Lancashire which goes down to the Lune. This was not acceptable to the Government, or to Lancashire; and although the Minister who is in charge of the Bill has given away nothing, I feel that something must be done to try to put this matter right. It is not a "parish pump issue", not an issue of Cumberland versus Lancashire, but very much a national issue.

I consider that the proposals for dealing with Lakeland as put forward by the Bill should be totally unacceptable from a national point of view. They really are not "on". Between now and the Bill's going to another place, can we not try to devise some means which will safeguard the National Park? My earlier proposals were dealt with in very great detail by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I feel that some of the points he made were not entirely correct, and I think that those points have in fact been put right by a deputation which went to see the Ministry of Housing and Local Government about this matter. Although some of the points that lie made in answering my proposals were not entirely accurate, I want to thank him very much indeed for three most valuable concessions, which he gave in Amendments which he moved himself, which go a very long way to reinforce Clause 93. As your Lordships will remember, Clause 93 is the amenity clause and is the one which is very important from my point of view. The noble Earl not only moved these three very valuable Amendments himself, but he also allowed the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, on nature conservancy to go through. But, my Lords, I feel that this is not enough.

This is a very special case. Lakeland is a national heritage, and the various strengthenings of Clause 93 which help over the whole field of this Bill are not enough to safeguard this particular and special problem. Lakeland cannot be safe under the Bill as it stands. The control of Central Lancashire must be pre-eminent, must be paramount, in spite of what the noble Earl said to me at the Committee stage. He said that perhaps I was making heavy weather of this point, and that Cumberland and the Lake interests would not be quite so heavily outnumbered as I had suggested they were. But I am afraid this is not so. The pressure of consuming interests must prevail, and the pressure of expediency must prevail. That being so, I feel that we must ask for something more for the Lake authority than we are going to get even with the concessions which the noble Earl has given. I feel that, if we were doing water conservancy on a great regional basis, we should have been perfectly happy to have been inside (shall we say?) the control of the six Northern counties, but I do not feel that we can be inside the control of the six Lancashire boroughs. That, I feel, is really an impossible situation.

My new proposal takes the old Cumberland River Board area plus the Furness area of Lancashire and also, of course, South Westmorland with it. My new proposal would embrace the whole of the National Park. Not only that, but it leaves Central Lancashire with the Lune and the Ribble unseparated. This was a very important point so far as Lancashire was concerned, and they felt that by separating the Lune and the Ribble we were making nonsense of the new area. I do not know how much support I am going to get from your Lordships, but from talking to people in the Lakeland area, people representing some of the interests from Lancashire and Westmorland, I feel that I have considerably more support for this new Amendment than perhaps I had for the old one.

This new area which I propose seems to me an entirely viable one. It is more convenient from the point of view of land drainage and fisheries than is the Bill's area. Apart from a very big regional area which raises different problems, the area that I am proposing is already large enough. If you consider the enormous number of lakes, the number of rivers, the number of watersheds, the number of river basins, you realise it is a formidable problem, very different from those areas which have comparatively few watersheds. So from the point of view of size alone, it seems to me that there is no special need to be thinking in terms of making it any bigger. Let me make a comparison with Cornwall. In Cornwall you have slightly more than three-quarters of a million acres and a third of a million population. So far as Lakeland is concerned, you have a million and a half acres and slightly less than half a million population. Here we have an area in Cornwall which is acceptable to the Government. Surely the Lakeland area is viable on the same terms.

Secondly, if we take rateable value as an indication of financial strength, then it is still a viable unit. Let me quote, for example, the Gwynedd River Authority, which is a tiny one but which, nevertheless, is felt by the Government to be a viable unit. Thirdly, hydro-metrically it seems to me to be perfectly all right. If you take the present Cumberland River Board area as now constituted, it is more or less equal to the hydrometric area proposed by the first Report of the Sub-Committee. But now, if you take some of the new authorities that the Bill proposes, they are so small that it takes three of them to make one of these hydrometric areas. So I think on those grounds, hydrologically and hydrometrically, that this area is a perfectly good one.

Let me take some of the points which are worrying Lancashire, which made them oppose my first proposals. First of all, the Lune and the Ribble are not separated under this new suggestion. Secondly, the Ribble is not absorbed by the Mersey. Here to some extent I feel that on both of these points a salmon fishers lobby has been brought to bear. As I said at the Committee stage, I do not really feel that the question of the fishery problem is quite as important either as the noble Earl made it out to be or, indeed, as the Lancashire lobby made it out to be. But as anyone who is on a river board knows, the fishery interest is always one of the most voluble and persistent. I think that it has been this fishery interest which pressed against my Amendment in the Committee stage. I hope that those Lancashire fishermen will feel happy about my new Amendment.

Thirdly, so far as land drainage is concerned, their criticism was that the Fylde area was a very expensive one and the Lune-Lakes authority, as I proposed at the Committee stage, would not be financially strong enough to deal with these very expensive drainage problems. Under my new arrangement the Fylde area stays with financial strength—stays, in other words, with Lancashire. Fourthly, the new Lancashire authority that I am suggesting is equally viable financially with the area that I want in Lakeland. Lastly, Lancashire itself, through the Furness part which would come into the Lakeland authority, will have a representation of something like a quarter. So it seems to me that Lancashire can hardly oppose my new proposal. I feel that every point they made has been met—as to fishery interests, as to drainage interests and, lastly, as to representational interests.

What about Westmorland? Westmorland were not with me in my first Amendment. They again felt that the area I was proposing was going to be financially too weak to deal with the drainage problems; and that Westmorland, being a very poor county, would certainly have found itself as part of this having to foot the bill for very expensive drainage operations. Well, I have met this point, again. The expensive land drainage part of the system is going to stay with Lancashire.

It seems to me, my Lords, that there is only one disadvantage to my new proposal, and that is the disadvantage that you already have 26 river authorities, and what I am proposing is going to add yet another. But does this really make very much difference? The Government have departed from the idea of treating water conservancy on a really large basis; that is to say, having, let us say, only six authorities for the whole country. So that by merely adding a twenty-seventh to the existing 26 as proposed, I do not really think you are going to upset the balance very much. All you are doing is having three river authorities—Merseyside and Cheshire, Lancashire with the Lune and the Ribble, and then a Lakeland authority, instead of the two proposed by the Bill.

I put this forward as a talking point, because I think it is absolutely essential to try to hammer out something to calm the fears of the millions of lovers of the Lake District. We know that this area, this great National Park, is and must be a reservoir. But I do feel that the control of this reservoir simply must be in the hands of Lakeland, and not in the hands of Central Lancashire. All the arguments which were put forward last February in the great Manchester Corporation Bill debate about Ullswater are really arguments which are pertinent to the issue we are now discussing. This area is unique. It is a unique area in England, and a unique National Park. It is the greatest and most significant of them all, and it must be treated in a unique way. I feel that no other area suggested as a river authority can put up arguments of this sort; and if ever there was a case for making a separate authority, Lakeland is it.

Amendment moved— Page 102, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Henley.)

5.51 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has submitted his Amendment in a very reasoned and moderate way, and although I am myself not necessarily committed to any details of the Amendment, I am in full accord with the purport of it, which is to ensure that, on any authority, the representatives of the Lake District will not be so swamped that they will not be able to guard well what I am sure we would all wish to see guarded well. I am of opinion that, under the Bill as it now stands, they cannot, by reason of their numbers, have the influence and the voting power to ensure that; and I am voicing a widespread fear in the Lake District that, through this Bill, the beauties and the amenities may become seriously impaired because they will be under the direction of an authority which is primarily concerned with industrial and commercial needs.

There is no desire on the part of the Lake District in any way to make it unduly difficult for any consuming authority to secure the waters that the lakes can provide. There is no reluctance on their part in that regard. They are merely concerned to ask that, when a scheme for the extraction of water is put forward, the primary concern will not be to get it at the cheapest price—a price that might mean the impairing of amenities—but that whatever authority gets it should be prepared to spend adequately not only to secure the water but to secure the preservation of the amenities. That is the real problem, and it is the real concern of the people of the whole Lake District.

I am sure your Lordships must sympathise with us all in this. We have no desire to be difficult, but we do desire to ensure that the representatives of the Lake District on any authority will be sufficiently numerous not only to state the case but to press it home. Will your Lordships please remember that when at any time there comes a conflict between two interests, one commercial and industrial and the other scenic beauty and amenities, those who may be interested in preserving the amenities are hardpressed?—for the industrial world is much harder in its bargaining than is the artistic world and, what is more, it can easily get its way because it knows it has better "know-how" than those who are concerned merely with the arts and cultures. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the purport of this Amendment, which is to see that the authority established to cover the lakes will be one on which the representatives of the lakes will have sufficient numbers to ensure that in any scheme the amenities and the beauty of this Lake District will be preserved. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, it is a unique area.

If I could be assured by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that this question is going to be looked at again and again, I would not myself feel under any obligation to press the Amendment to its bitter end. But I want to express a very widespread fear, a widespread concern—and it is a concern for national interests, not just for local interests. The Lake District is a national asset, and it is in the interests of the nation that it should be preserved. I think that we are right and fully justified in asking that the nation should ensure that in a Bill of this kind there is embedded the provision for an authority that can adequately safeguard this lovely part of England, which we would wish to preserve wholly for all concerned.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like very shortly to support this Amendment, about which I feel very deeply, coming as I do from the part of the country concerned, but I think that the case has been put so very well by my noble friend behind me and by the right reverend Prelate that there is very little more one can say, except that it really is not, I assure your Lordships, a matter of parish pump politics. Those of your Lordships who know Central Lancashire and Lakeland can have a great admiration for each of those areas for totally different reasons, and we should not try to lump them together for tidiness. As was said in the debate we had earlier in the afternoon, tidiness is of itself not necessarily a good thing. These two areas are as unlike each other as oil and water or chalk and cheese. I would appeal to your Lordships to remember that we did a great service to the country when we saved Ullswater, and I hope we can follow that example in this instance.

5.58 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I should like to add a word, too. We have not had the pleasure of hearing the right reverend Prelate since, I think, his very notable contribution to the Ullswater debate. There is a certain resemblance between the two situations, and I hope his intervention to-day will be equally successful. I do not want to repeat the arguments which I put before the House on the Second Reading of this Bill, which I think are really at the back of everybody's mind, although they have not, perhaps, been brought out quite fully this afternoon.

The point, of course, is that the area referred to in the Schedule at the present time, which extends deep down into Lancashire, contains very many county boroughs. I think I am right in saying that there are more county boroughs in Lancashire than in any other county in England. Of course, it is quite true that this area does not cover the whole of Lancashire, but it includes a sufficient number of county boroughs, with their immense rateable values, to give them a really quite decisive influence on the river authority if it is established as laid down at present in the Schedule. That, undoubtedly, has very much frightened the people in the Lake District.

There is no need for me to emphasise the importance of this area. I know the noble Earl is just as much enamoured of it as I am. The concessions to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has referred do, I admit, help us to some extent, particularly the one which requires that any proposal should be brought to the attention of the Planning Board at once. This will be a very great help in this connection, as I am sure the noble Earl will point out when he comes to reply. It might be that it could go somewhat further. I think it is right to say the Minister has power to call in any proposal which may appear to him to be dangerous or to require further consideration. I hope that I am right about this: perhaps the noble Earl will deal with the points in his reply.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I can reply at once. The answer is, Yes.

LORD CHORLEY

I thought that was so. I wonder if the noble Earl could go further and say that he will undertake, on behalf of the Minister, that anything affecting the Lake District will be called in—I will not say automatically; but will be considered or at any rate looked at carefully with a view to calling it in if it seems necessary. This would undoubtedly be a help also. But the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, was rubbing in, and which the Minister accepted at an earlier stage, was that the decisions are taken in the very beginning. We have these county boroughs many of which are great manufacturing boroughs, and others—places like Blackpool; great places for holiday makers—where a great volume of water is required for baths and otherwise, looking with envious eyes on the Lake District's water supplies, and having at the beginning a dominating control over the river authority by virtue of their representation and their rateable values. It is going to be exceedingly difficult for the local people to stand up to them, even with the assistance of the concessions that the Government have given. I may tell the noble Earl that I was in the Lake District last week-end and met many leaders of the amenity movement, and they were greatly encouraged by the Amendments which he gave us last week. If he had been there it would have done him good to hear the commendations he received. If he will go a step further this afternoon, then further eulogies will be piled upon his head. I hope that he will see his way to do this.

LORD MOYNE

My Lords, it does not seem so long since we were privileged to hear the last but by no means the least of the speeches of that eloquent advocate and great-hearted man, the late Lord Birkett, on the Manchester Corporation Bill. It was a memorable speech, and alas! it proved to be his swan-song. It convinced a majority of your Lordships that the beauties of Ullswater ought not to be put at the mercy of the bath-taps of far away Manchester. We were so strongly moved that we took the unusual course of refusing the Private Bill a Second Reading. Can any of us who are not ostriches doubt for a moment which way Lord Birkett if he were alive to-day would vote on the Amendment before us? I cannot help thinking that when the White Paper was drafted the words used by Lord Birkett were still wisely echoing in the ears of the Government. It is the purpose of these few sentences to bring back to the mind of my noble friend the arguments that Lord Birkett used to defend the beauties of the Lake District he loved so well. The case is not, of course, the same; but, as has been pointed out, it is parallel. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is going to take the gentlemanly course of not dividing the House and of asking the Government to think again. I hope that they will do so in such a way as to pay tribute to the late Lord Birkett's memory.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of what has been said. I have not intervened on this Bill on this particular subject before, because it seemed to me that it would be better to leave it to those who speak with so much direct and recent knowledge of the area. I had the honour of winding up for my friend the late Lord Birkett in the debate to which we have been referred, and though I have not visited it recently, I have an old love for the area. That love encourages me to plead for very special consideration, on national grounds, for what is a unique part of the country. I have not studied in detail the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but in common with the rest of the House I am grateful to him for his study of the matter and for having put it down. I beg to support him. I would ask the Government to give this matter their most careful consideration.

LORD HURCOMB

My Lords, it is impossible not to be impressed by the arguments so temperately but forcefully calling attention to the special problem in this unique area. I was particularly impressed, if I may say so, by the remarks made by the right reverend Prelate. On the other hand, it is difficult also not to be impressed by the argument which the Minister will no doubt use in his reply, that the cure for problems of this kind is not likely to be found in a multiplication of authorities to which there is, on general grounds, a strong objection. Is it not possible that the remedy for this special situation is to be found partly in the fact that the Minister himself will consider it at a suitably early stage as a special problem? And is it not a matter to which the Water Resources Board, with their wide powers, will give early attention? They are in a more detached position than any individual river authority will be. They are under various obligations, which the Minister has strengthened during the various stages of the Bill, including an obligation to have regard to the preservation of amenities. If they were to review this area from every angle—not only the needs of the urban population, but the way in which the resources of the whole area could be best conserved and used—might not some solution more fundamental than merely an amelioration of the position be found in that way?

The whole policy of the treatment of our water resources needs fundamental examination. The one thing not to do is to allow everybody who wants water to divert it from its natural channels, tap it at its source, and put it into pipes. A very great deal of water has to be used over and over again. Many of your Lordships who live in London may think of the water they are drinking and its sources, and they will conclude that most of it is purified effluent. But a great deal of the demand for water can be met in a much less extravagant way than by creating reservoirs near to the rise of the various streams and rivers and piping it away. It is sound enough, no doubt, to impound the water near the source, but it is not, I believe, sound to divert it then from its natural channels. Much more could be done, too, to store water in times of surplus.

All those are problems which it is impossible to discuss during the passage of a Bill in your Lordships' House, but they are, I should have thought, matters of which the Water Resources Board ought to make some study coming to some conclusion, in particularly urgent cases, at a very early stage in their existence. If that were done, and if the Minister or his advisers, who are alive to most of these problems, also gave early attention, as they must have already done in some respects, to the particular position in this area, something might be done to avoid what those who love the Lake District and live in it are, not unnaturally, seriously apprehensive about at the present time.

6.11 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like to begin my reply to the noble Lord with a word of apology. It has been brought to my notice that when we were discussing this subject on Committee stage in December, I said that two dates had been arranged for meetings between the Departments concerned and the Cumberland River Board, and that neither had taken place. I am sorry to find out that I was under a misapprehension. The facts were not precisely as I stated them. The truth is that meetings were twice contemplated, but that in fact a firm date was fixed for only one. I should like to take this opportunity of putting the record straight.

Despite the persuasiveness with which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, argued his case on Committee stage, I think it would be fair to say that it did not attract much support in your Lordships' House. That was a striking change from our debate a year ago on Ullswater. That change is an understandable one, because, despite what has been said by noble Lords this evening, and despite some relationship and superficial likenesses, the two issues are very different. The noble Lord, undeterred, like all good Liberals, has reverted to the charge and now proposes another set-up. On this occasion, I note with interest and some disquietude that he has rallied not only the State but also the Church to his assistance. I appreciate the knowledge which he, as a member of a river board, brings to this matter. I respect very much his sincerity, and I am aware of his continual persuasiveness and persistance. Yet I am afraid that I am just as unable to recommend your Lordships to accept his February scheme as I was unable to recommend to your Lordships his December scheme.

I concede at once that the new Henley boundary avoids at least one objection that I advanced to his earlier scheme. It. now permits the Lune and the Ribble to lie down together, and as a result the fishery work based on the Lune, which is now proving so profitable to the Ribble, will not be broken up. Having conceded that point straight away to the noble Lord, I would refer to the principal objection which has been advanced to our proposed amalgamation—that is, the objection on the score of representation. I know that genuine and deep-seated fears are entertained on this score. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle told us some of them and I accept what he said. Many people seem to think that, because of the balance of rateable value and local authority representation, the views of the industrial South will outweigh and override the views of the Lakeland North in the river authority which we are suggesting. I still feel that those fears, albeit sincerely held, are Greatly exaggerated, and even the noble Lord, speaking with his customary moderation, made rather heavy weather of this argument this afternoon. He spoke of the river authority being under the control of six Lancashire boroughs. That is such an exaggeraton as to be verging on a travesty of the position, as I understand it.

I would remind your Lordships that this is to be an authority of 31 members, one of the larger authorities. Fifteen will be appointed by my right honourable friend. Of the 16 local authority representatives, 4 will be likely to come from the old Cumberland area, and of the remaining 12, some 6 will be representatives of Lancashire County Council. And I would remind your Lordships, if you need reminding, that much of this Northern part of Lancashire is rural, with rural-minded people living in it, as my noble friend Lord Clitheroe pointed out on Committee stage.

I would also remind your Lordships that the Lancashire River Board, com- posed of just these people, has shown by its attention to the Ribble and Lune fisheries how much it is alive to matters which concern countrymen. I would remind you, also, that the power of co-option which is written into this Bill provides a further means of tapping local knowledge where that is thought to be desirable. Finally, I would again suggest that we should not here attach too much importance to the counting of heads. Many of the existing river boards already include heavy conurbations, which claim a preponderance of local authority representation. The example of the Trent River Board occurs to me immediately. But that does not mean that these boards are neglecting that part of their work which benefits only rural areas. Does the Lancashire River Board at present give short shift to the needs of Westmorland, Furness and the Duddon?

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not at present concerned with providing reservoirs.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I was thinking of drainage, and I do not think that anyone could claim that the Lancashire River Board is inattentive to the drainage needs of the Northern area. I suggest to your Lordships that the real protection for amenity (and what I am going to say will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Chorley), and for the integrity of a National Park, an integrity which we all wish to preserve, is not to be found in "rigging" the areas of the river authorities or "fiddling" representation upon them.

For the reasons have given, I suggest that the fears on this score of representation are rather exaggerated. Nevertheless, I do not wish to rest my case for the river authority we propose in the First Schedule on these merely negative grounds; primarily I base it on the positive ground that we see considerable advantages in the authority as proposed. In the first place, in the matter of finance, which has a particular bearing on land drainage, during the current financial year (according to my information) the Lancashire River Board provided a sum of over £83,000 for expenditure on works and services in the Duddon, Kent, and Leven catchments, the area which the noble Lord proposes to graft on to the old Cumberland River Board area. The estimated precept revenue from that area is under £30,000, leaving a deficit of something over £54,000. The area, if grafted on, represents from this point of view a net burden. Its addition to Cumberland would require, I gather, a precept over the whole of the Cumberland River Board as extended at about 1¾ times the present rate.

I do not wish to dwell too heavily on the sordid argument of finance, though it is important, because we are concerned here with matters which will require financing; and quite heavy financing. But I do propose to labour the argument based on water conservation, because the noble Lord, Lord Henley, himself recognised—and I should like to quote from words that he used in our Committee stage [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 245 (No. 27), col. 1290]—that much the strongest of his argument is about water conservation, and this Bill is about water conservation so I am happier there. Parenthetically, I would explain that "his" is me and "there" refers to our proposed amalgamation. As your Lordships may know, I have for the last twelve months or so been presiding over a conference concerned with water supplies in the North-West. The conference set up a technical committee to look into this matter in all its detail. The sources which the technical committee have thought worthy of consideration are more or less evenly divided between the Cumberland River Board area and the Lancashire River Board area, but they extend over the whole of the latter area, and not just the snippet which the noble Lord would seek to graft on to the Cumberland River Board area.

It quickly became clear to all of us, looking at this problem, that one cannot get a complete picture of the alternatives, say, to the Ullswater and Bannisdale schemes, which were discussed in your Lordships' House last year, without taking account of various possible ways of developing the water resources of the Lune and Ribble catchments. This study has demonstrated that in any survey of water resources the two river board areas must be regarded as a single unit. The best way of doing this for the future is surely to have a single authority responsible for the combined area. This is the form of organisation best calculated to achieve the object which we all have in mind—namely to work out how best to harness the great water resources of this part of the country without damaging its natural beauty. The fact that the proposal in the Bill preserves the unity of a substantial water-producing and water-exporting area is a fundamental advantage of the Government's proposed scheme here. It is an advantage which I think is not to be lightly cast away; and if your Lordships were to accept Lord Henley's Amendment, you would be casting it away.

I would emphasise as strongly as I can that, from the point of view of water conservation, and of securing well-informed and comprehensive management of water resources, the Amendment is sadly disadvantageous compared with the scheme in the Bill. It is disadvantageous in the loss of unified control over the waters of this water exporting area, and would be further disadvantageous if the Ribble and Lune catchments had to be combined with an area further to the South with quite different problems of water conservation from those which obtain in these two catchments. Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I think, rather glossed over the problem. In Committee, many noble Lords stressed that the one thing we should not do is to create more river authorities. The burden of their argument was that there were too many written into this Bill already. I would not lightly see the further creation of river authorities, and that might well be the result of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, because it would, in fact, be reducing the existing area of the Lancashire River Board.

My Lords, if we want better water conservation, if this is what the Bill is really about, as the noble Lord himself says, and if we want better conservation in the North-West, as I assume that we do, then I would urge your Lordships to go for the bigger and bolder scheme written into the Bill. I apologise for the length of my reply, but this is an important matter, and I realise that there is a great interest in it in the North-West.

Finally, I should like to deal with the argument that the Henley scheme would afford greater protection for the amenity of the Lake District than the proposals we have in mind. I must again claim that the Government's actions in this Bill—not just their words—have shown that they mean business when they say that the protection of the natural beauty of, if I may dare say it, our greatest National Park, is one of their constant objectives. I fully accept what the right reverend Prelate said about the area we are discussing being a national heritage; of course it is. In the Government's view, that natural beauty will be better protected if the proposal in the Schedule stands than if we accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

Let me briefly recapitulate the safeguards for amenity now written into this Bill—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for what they said on this score. First, there is the provision on Clause 13 for the appointment of an amenity member to the Water Resources Board. I think it is almost certain that the Water Resources Board will immediately be alerted of all important schemes, and that the amenity member of the Water Resources Board will therefore stand as a watchdog of amenity over such schemes. Secondly, special references to natural beauty are to be found in Clause 19 dealing with minimum acceptable flows—not unimportant in the Lakeland area. Thirdly, there is the new subsection in Clause 52 dealing with transmission of applications for licences to National Park Planning Authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, reminded us, that is a not insignificant subsection, so far as this National Park is concerned.

Fourthly, my Lords, there is the saving for the town and country planning legislation in Clause 63 (3). Fifthly, there is the amenity clause itself, Clause 93. Sixthly, there is the new clause after Clause 93, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and accepted by the Government, recognising the special responsibilities in this field of the Nature Conservancy. Seventhly, I would again remind noble Lords that I myself proposed on the Committee stage an Amendment which will make the Water Resources Board, in addition to the river authorities, responsible for securing amenity. I would claim that those provisions are not just pious expressions of hope. They are precise enactments which together will ensure that amenity is always in mind at all stages of the river authority's work and in the counsels of the Water Resources Board. They secure that the views of the National Park Planning Authority—in this case the Lake District Park Planning Board—will be made known to the river authority, and will need to be taken into consideration by that authority. They secure that decisions on planning permission for the construction of works are taken not by the river authority, but either by the planning board or by the Minister himself.

I should like, if I may, to confirm that it is most unlikely that on a controversial application the final decision would in practice rest with the river authority. The Minister quite clearly has power, under Clause 38, to direct that particular applications be referred to him for decision, and it is highly likely that he will use his power in cases of the sort that I am sure we all have in mind. For example, the Planning Board, as the custodian of the amenity of the National Park, will no doubt be quick to urge him to take action on what they consider to be dangerous applications. The Water Resources Board will be alerted, if necessary, through their amenity member, and I am certain that the Minister would be extremely sympathetic to representations from that quarter. I would add that where an application of this kind is called in, a public inquiry would be bound to be held, so that even if the river authority were to support the application the opponents would have full opportunity to state their case.

In all these circumstances, I would state quite categorically that these provisions make it impossible for any river authority to ride roughshod over local opinion in this question of natural beauty and amenity. I know that it can be argued that all the provisions to which I have referred apply with equal force to a river authority proposed in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Indeed they do. My argument is not only that they will apply to the area described in the Schedule, but that that area will better secure the objective we have in mind. Even with the provisions of the Bill for securing transfers of water between areas—and these will be effective—it seems axiomatic to me that if within an area there is a wider range of choice of sites for any particular project, there will be a better chance of settling on the best one from all points of view, including the factor of amenity.

I regard as a matter of great importance that the further development of the North-West's precious water resources should be planned not only with the greatest care, not only with the greatest possible regard to amenity, but also on as wide, bold and comprehensive a basis as possible. I believe that the river authority we propose will give us a mechanism to enable such planning to be carried out. I also remain convinced that the best defences for the incomparable natural beauty of this area lie in the provisions of the Bill as they now stand. For these reasons, my Lords, while I am fully sympathetic to much that has been said by those who advocate this Amendment, and while I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the views which they hold—although some of them, I think, were exaggerated—I do not feel it right to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment.

6.33 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Earl has made a very strong case, but no doubt in spite of that there may still be some fears in Cumberland. I believe the noble Earl said that the Cumberland district would be represented by 4 members out of 31. It is rather a small number, and I can well imagine that those members would feel rather swamped. But it is possible, as I see it in paragraph 5, for the Minister to appoint additional members to the Board in special circumstances. If there is this recognised fear in Cumberland for the protection of their countryside, I wonder if the Minister would consider whether this could come under "special circumstances". If he adopted that view, then perhaps he could increase the number of members from Cumberland to 6 or 7, which would give them a feeling of a little more power and ability to put their case if they were ever in conflict with the remainder of the Board. I wonder whether the noble Earl can say anything in that respect.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should like to say three things in that regard. The first is that I do not think the comparison is between 4 and 31; it is between 4 and 16. There will be 16 local authority representatives in a river authority of 31, of whom we calculate that probably some 4 would be drawn from the old Cumberland River Board area. The second point is that I would assume that of the Ministerial appointments—their qualifications are set out in subsection (3) of Clause 6—a proportion of those 15 would be drawn from Lakeland. Finally it is quite true, as the noble Lord has said, that in special circumstances subsection (5) might apply. Thinking aloud on my feet I would not wish in any way to commit my right honourable friend in that respect, but special circumstances are, as the noble Lord rightly said, provided for.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the Bill goes to another place, could the noble Earl consult his Minister in this respect and see whether some assurance could be given that there should be a reasonable balance, so that the fears of Cumberland, which have been well expressed here this afternoon, could in some way be allayed?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I recognise, of course, as I hope I was at pains to point out, that there is a genuine concern here, and I am very willing to fall in with the noble Lord's first proposal.

LORD HENLEY

My Lords, I do not seem to have got very far, but I hope, at any rate, that I have helped, with other noble Lords who have raised amenity points, to bring a sense of the importance of all these amenity considerations before the Government. They have certainly given way on a number of things, and I thank the Minister for that. While saying that, I am still no more convinced by what he has said to me on this Amendment, than I was by what he said before. What he says, in effect, now is that the Bill's proposals for a river authority are more likely to protect the amenities of the Lake District than either my Amendment at the Committee stage or my Amendment at this stage. This is patently not so. The fact that there are these additional safeguards which the Minister has kindly given, are to some extent an indication that he himself does not regard the Bill's proposals as being nearly so safeguarding to the Lake District as my scheme would be.

Let me take one or two of the actual details he has mentioned. First, there is the question of representation—and here I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for raising another possibility which the Government might look into. I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl has been pretty rough with me here. He thinks that my contention that it would be under the control of six boroughs—I forget the actual words he used, but I felt that he thought it was an irresponsible suggestion.

EARL JELLICOE

I think I said that it was exaggerated to the point of travesty.

LORD HENLEY

An elegant phrase, my Lords, but is it true? What I said seems to me to be much more the case. I said that the Lakeland area would be under the control of these authorities. The noble Earl has produced various figures which are more or less the same figures he produced at the Committee stage and which the river authority of which I have knowledge immediately denied, and denied again, I think, when they went with the deputation the other day. I do not want to get into the condition of counting heads, "rigging" areas or "fiddling" representatives. This is not the point. The point still is, whatever the noble Earl says, that we are very much at the mercy of the consumer. As I said before, we know that we are a reservoir, but we feel that we must have control of it; and nothing the noble Earl has said convinces me to the contrary.

The same applies to the noble Earl's remarks on finance. He has painted a picture of the most appalling deficits if we adopted my suggestion. May I say that it would not have been possible to draw up the White Paper suggestions if this sort of deficit was going to occur? The Government's White Paper area, which was my first Amendment in the Committee, was really taking the Government's own arguments. Those arguments were rejected: they were not demolished utterly, but rather were rejected on the ground that one put a slightly different emphasis on all the new arguments. Nevertheless, no one can possibly convince me that there will be a terrible deficit on the drainage problems in the Duddon, Kent and Levin river basins: because, as I say, this would have made nonsense of the White Paper in the first place. Again, he feels that this new area of mine would be sadly disadvantageous from the Lancashire point of view, but am I not only asking for what is now being given Lancashire? I cannot help feeling that the Lancashire lobby must have been extraordinarily effective here. They do not want to have the Ribble, or the Lune either, put into the hands of the Mersey area, which they feel does not know anything about fish and which, in any case, consists mainly of houses. We are asking the same for Cumberland, but for some extraordinary reason the Government have rejected our contention, which was their own when they drew up the White Paper, but are now allowing Lancashire to have their case, which seems to me no better than ours.

I am most disappointed. I have obtained slightly more support for this Amendment than I had for the previous one and I must thank the noble Earl for taking very great trouble to answer all my points in Committee and here in such very great detail. But I am just not convinced. I am disappointed, but I hope that this has gone some way towards making the Government realise that this is a problem of the greatest urgency and one which does worry us very much in the North. Having said that, I feel there is no other course open to me but to ask for the withdrawal of my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Adaptation of Statutory Provisions in Consequence of Transfer of Functions]:

6.43 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)

My Lords, this Amendment makes drafting changes in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, with the result that the paragraph will embrace all the types of adaptation on which paragraph 4 of the Schedule is to operate but no others. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 102, line 24, leave out from ("areas") to end of line 32 and insert ("the provisions of any enactment, order, scheme, award or byelaw were to have effect, or to be construed, as if they referred, or included references, to river boards or their areas generally, or to a particular river board or the area of a particu- lar river board, those provisions shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having been amended accordingly by the said Act of 1948.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential and linked with Government Amendment 83, Clause 85. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 102, line 34, leave out from ("all") to ("before") in line 35 and insert ("enactments, orders, schemes, regulations, awards and byelaws passed or made").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment goes with Amendment No. 91 and Clause 89, and has much the same effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 102, line 44, at end insert— ("Provided that sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph shall not affect the construction of any reference to a particular river board area where the appropriate river authority area comprises that river board area together with the area of another river board.").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, these next two Amendments are drafting. The first inserts among the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, which are not to apply to river authorities, subsections (2) to (7) of Section 47, since those subsections will be superseded by Schedule 9. The second then deletes paragraph 6 (3) of Schedule 2, which will be superfluous. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 103, line 10, leave out ("46 and") and insert ("and 46, subsections (2) to (7) of section 47, section").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 103, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Provisions as to river authorities]:

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 110, line 46, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I should say just a word on this Amendment. Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act, 1961, lists certain investments ("Narrower-range investments requiring advice") in which a trustee may invest. Among these investments are loans and other securities issued by local and other authorities to which paragraph 9 applies. In view of Clause 6 (2) and Clause 79 of the Bill a river authority will normally be an authority to which that paragraph 9 of the 1961 Act applies. If, however, any of the local members of the Authority were, because of a disagreement among the constituent councils, to be appointed by the Minister on behalf of those constituent councils there would not be a majority of members appointed by the constituent councils. This Amendment is designed to put that right. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 113, line 24, at end insert—

("Trustee Investments Act 1961

33. Any river authority which, apart from this paragraph, would not be included among the authorities to which paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961 applies shall by virtue of this Act be included among those authorities.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, will this Amendment mean that any river authority will be eligible to be included in that list of authorities within the scope of what is called the "narrower range" of investments requiring advice under the Trustee Investments Act?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think I can best answer that question by saying that this Amendment ensures that a river authority will be an authority to which paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1961 applies.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Procedure relating to statements of minimum acceptable flows]:

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 14, Clause 19. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 115, line 32, at end insert— ("(c) any other statutory water undertakers who were consulted in relation to the draft statement in pursuance of paragraph (b) of section 19 (4) of this Act (including that paragraph as applied by any other provision of Part III of this Act.")).—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, Amendments No. 128 and 129 are the last in a series of drafting Amendments of a similar nature. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 115, line 36, after ("authority") insert ("harbour authority or conservancy authority").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 115, line 38, leave out ("navigation").—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I should like to move the next four Amendments together. They are drafting, paving the way for a new Part IV of this Schedule. The effect is to delete from Part I of the Schedule all references to the Minister of Transport, whose position is now to be dealt with in the new Part IV. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 116, leave out lines 10 to 16.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 116, line 26, leave out from ("Minister") to ("before") in line 28.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 116, line 32, leave out from ("Minister") to ("for") in line 33.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 116, line 36, leave out from first ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 37.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, this group of four Amendments also go together. They are drafting, and their effect is to delete from Part II of the Schedule all references to the Minister of Transport. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 117, leave out lines 15 to 21.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 117, line 32, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 33.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 117, line 39, leave out from ("Minister") to ("for") in line 40.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 117, line 43, leave out from ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 44.—(Lord Hastings.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.50 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE moved to add to paragraph 15: (5) In any provision of Part I or Part II of this Schedule as applied by this paragraph, any reference to paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall be construed as a reference to subparagraph (2) of this paragraph.

Forward to