WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

HL Deb 15 June 1967 vol 283 cc1038-73

3.45 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD INGLEWOOD had given Notice of his intention to move to insert a new clause [Consultation with authorities in England] after Clause 6. The noble Lord said: Following that short interruption, and bearing in mind the nature of my Amendment, perhaps it is not inappropriate that I should say that the problems along the frontier between Scotland and England were for many centuries just as intransigent as those in the Middle East with which we are all too familiar to-day. But we have settled our differences and I hope that others will note and follow our example.

When I first read this Bill I was sorry to see that, while there is reference to consultation and collaboration between regional water boards in Scotland—that is in Clause 6—there appeared to be no reference to consultation between regional water boards adjoining the Border and the English river authorities on the other side of the Border. So I set to and drafted a new clause, which is based on a similar clause found in the Water Resources Act 1963. I felt that without some such clause this Bill would be sadly deficient.

I think it is curious how reluctant Departments always seem to be to provide co-operation across the Border—your Lordships will note that I now say "Border" and not "frontier"—when the advantages are so clear to the ordinary man. Furthermore, while in some cases provision for such co-operation may seem academic, in other cases, such as the planning of water resources, it seems only common sense that the catchment area of the Tweed, for example, on the East side should be considered as one and that the rivers flowing into the Solway, both from the North and the South on the West side, should again be considered as one.

A few days after I had drafted my Amendment I was delighted to to see that a similar Amendment appeared on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and I take it as very flattering that many of the words which he used were exactly the same words as I had used in my Amendment. In these circumstances, and provided that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has not changed his mind in the interval and will signify that he does intend to move his Amendment, I beg leave not to move mine.

LORD HUGHES

I think it will be convenient if I speak to this Amendment and to the new clause which I propose in Amendment No. 9 to be inserted after Clause 28. I do not think that the relations between the two countries, to which the noble Lord so felicitously referred at the beginning of his remarks, really require this to be spelled out in so many words. We have long gone past the stage where co-operation of this kind, which is so very much required, as he said, in the interests of common sense, would not take place if it were not laid down. But the Amendment having been put down by the noble Lord, it seemed to the Government that it was perfectly sound that we should insert it, if for no other reason than—to use the old phrase—the avoidance of doubt.

There is nothing wrong with the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward, other than a very slight defect in the wording at the beginning. He has fallen into the error of assuming that it is the board which adjoins England, whereas it is not the board; it is its area. This is the only extent to which his Amendment is wrong. It would therefore have been quite churlish if, the Government having accepted the rightness of what he proposed, we had altered the Amendment in any place other than where it was strictly necessary. We do not believe in changing words needlessly. What he suggested was perfectly satisfactory when this particular defect was corrected. I do not know what particular purpose is served by placing it after Clause 28, as the Government suggest, rather than after Clause 6, as the noble Lord suggested—I am afraid that is one of the mysteries known only to the draftsmen—but I do not suppose the noble Lord is worried about where in the Bill it appears. I am grateful to him for submitting this Amendment, the principle of which I am happy to accept. I will in due course move—and I hope the Committee will accept—Amendment No. 9.

Clauses 7 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20:

Transfer of officers and servants

20.—(1) Where all the functions of the authority have been transferred to one board, that board shall take over and employ, as from the second appointed day, any person, who immediately before that day was employed by the authority solely in connection with those functions, where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board on terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable than those on which he was employed by the authority immediately before that day.

3.51 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "solely" to insert "or mainly". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is simply designed to ensure that a person in the employ of one of the existing water undertakings who spends most, if not all, of his time on water functions should be entitled to insist on transfer to the appropriate regional board. There is no doubt that, in fairness to the employees concerned, this right to transfer should be given. It has certainly been given to the employees affected by the transfer to many large, new water undertakings in England and Wales. For instance, the Taf Fechan Water Board, set up for the area of 13 local authorities under an Order of 1964, was required to take over —and I quote: every officer or servant who immediately before the day of transfer is solely or mainly employed by an existing board or is employed by a transferring council solely or mainly in connection with the undertaking of that council so far as the persons concerned were willing to transfer to the board's employment. There are many other examples that could be given.

There is no reason to suppose that this will result in the over-staffing of regional boards. Indeed, on the information available to the men's trade union it seems likely that, even with the transfer provisions, a number of boards may find themselves in staffing difficulties, due either to employees preferring to remain with their former local authority employers or to the real need for further water officers. If the Amendment is not included, it must be recognised that there will be no safeguard against unfair discrimination. If a water board for some reason wished to select certain part-time officers for employment and reject others they would be fully entitled to do so. This is not the basis upon which such matters in other cases have been regulated in the past and it could result in real injustice to particular individuals. I commend this Amendment to my noble friend as fair and reasonable and I hope he will be able to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 33, after ("solely") insert ("or mainly").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD HUGHES

It would, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to reply to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7—although at this stage the noble Lord has spoken only to Amendment No. 5—without any prejudice to his rights to say what he wishes in moving Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I am sorry that I cannot accept for the Government any of the three Amendments which the noble Lord has put down; but I do not think there will be any ill-effects so far as the employees of the authorities are concerned.

The main effect of Amendments 5 and 7 would be to extend the mandatory requirements of the clause, relating to the employment of officers and servants of existing local water authorities, not only to those engaged solely in connection with water functions but also to those engaged "mainly" on such functions; and further to bring within the ambit of the clause the case where an officer's work is split between two or more boards. The clause, as drafted, requires a board to take into its employment any person who is willing to enter the board's employment and who was employed solely in connection with the water functions of an authority which are transferred to the board, immediately before the transfer. Subsection (1) provides for the case where all the authority's functions are transferred to one board (that is, for the vast majority of cases) and subsection (2) for the case where an authority's functions are transferred to more than one board (for example, in the case of Kincardine County). In either case the engagement must, so far as practicable, be on terms and conditions not less favourable than those on which the person was employed by the authority before the transfer. These provisions represent a considerable advance on the clause as originally drafted. It was amended at Report stage in another place because the original proposals gave boards merely a permissive power to take into their employment any person who was employed soley or mainly in connection with the water functions of an authority which are transferred to the board.

The new boards will have different staffing arrangements from the local water authorities which they will replace. I must particularly draw to the attention of my noble friend the reason for the circumstances in this Bill differing from those to which he has referred as having taken place in England: we must remember the type of local authority and the resources available to a local authority in some parts of Scotland. In some of them, for instance, all the engineering functions of the local authority—for water supplies, roads, drainage, et cetera—are concentrated in a single department, whereas the board will want, at least in some cases, to have a whole-time engineer in charge of the whole region. Indeed, the engineer to a board must, unless the Secretary of State otherwise approves, be a whole-time employee, but any other employee may be engaged on a part-time basis if a board so wishes. Clause 25 enables a local authority to furnish administrative, technical or manual services to a board and some boards are likely to avail themselves of this provision.

Amendment No. 5 seeks to extend the mandatory provision to employees engaged "mainly" on water functions where all the functions of an authority have been transferred to one board. Amendment No. 7 seeks, in the case of functions transferred to more than one board, to place a duty on the boards not only to employ persons engaged solely in connection with functions transferred to one of the boards (as in subsection (2) of the clause) but also to require the boards concerned to arrange between them to take over staff employed in connection with functions transferred partly to one board and partly to another; any disputes under Clause 21 are to be determined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him. We in the Government think that mandatory requirements of this nature would be much too binding on the new boards, who must have some freedom to manage their own staffing arrangements, subject to suitable safeguards which strike a proper balance between what is right for the employee and what is best for the efficiency of the reorganised service and for the local government service as a whole. It would seem wrong, for instance, to require the new boards to take over officers whose duties were only 60 per cent. on water and who might, in the public interest, be better employed by remaining with a local authority's engineering department. The problem should be kept in perspective. About three-quarters of those engaged in the water service in Scotland are employed whole-time on these duties. Almost all of them will be covered by the clause as drafted. For the rest, we expect that there will be jobs for over 25 per cent. who are engaged part-time on water duties, should they wish to transfer. Should it prove impracticable to fit any of them into the new structure, they will, in accordance with the normal practice, be covered by the compensation arrangements provided for in Clause 24.

Amendment No. 6 would have the effect of requiring in every case that the terms and conditions of employment should be not less favourable than those on which the person was employed prior to the transfer of functions. This we accept as a general principle, but we cannot be certain that it would be possible for a board, with its new staffing structure, to achieve this to the letter in every case. The words, "so far as practicable" in the clause as drafted have no sinister meaning therefore, but have been inserted in order to avoid imposing a duty on a board which it might be unable to fulfil. In any event, we consider that the position of the officers in this matter is safeguarded by Clause 21, which provides for any disputes to be determined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him.

I would remind my noble friend that on a previous occasion when I was in charge of a Scottish Bill and he found it necessary to move Amendments of a somewhat similar kind, I was able to be a bit more forthcoming in that I accepted some of the Amendments he moved. I think that my noble friend would acquit the Government of any unwillingness in these matters and appreciate that it is merely a desire that the new boards should not be placed in an impossible administrative position which prevents us from accepting these Amendments. We are in complete agreement with the spirit which lies behind the tabling of them. I hope he will feel that what I have said is a clear enough indication that none of the employees will have anything to fear from the provisions of the Bill as they now stand; and that he will find it possible to withdraw Amendment No. 5 and not to proceed with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

4.3 p.m.

LORD BURDEN

I am obliged to my noble friend for his comprehensive reply to these Amendments. I think he strayed on to the last Amendment, which refers to an officer who may be employed by more than one local authority. May I point out, with respect, that Clause 21 will not apply to the officers on whose behalf this Amendment is moved? I will put it in this way. An officer who is employed mainly in dealing with water has no right of appeal. He is ruled out because the clause applies only to those solely engaged in that work. A person who is mainly employed, and who may perhaps do other work for only ten minutes during his office hours, is not solely employed. Therefore, as I read Clause 21, such a person has no right of appeal. The clause applies only to disputes which may arise concerning people who are solely employed, or to an officer whose activities relate to more than one of the water undertakings. I desire to be helpful as I am sure my noble friend does, but what I am asking for here has been provided in respect of dozens of these amalgamation schemes in this country. People will want to know why Scotland is being treated differently from England and why officers in Scotland are not having the same facilities afforded to them as are afforded to their colleagues in this country and in Wales. Is my noble friend prepared to meet the representatives of these men to see whether we can clear up the point at issue to the satisfaction of all concerned?

LORD HUGHES

The advice that I have been given is that Clause 21 would cover the people to whom my noble friend refers, but I have looked at the clause in the light of what he said, and I can understand why he feels as he does about the matter. If my noble friend is correct, if it should be that something further is necessary to safeguard the position of those to whom he refers, and if their right of appeal is in some doubt, I have no doubt that we should be willing to make proper provision. All we are concerned to do in this matter is to make certain that we are not placing on any water board a responsibility which it would be impossible for the board to discharge. It is not necessary to place the appeal rights of anyone in jeopardy in order to achieve that purpose. I should be very happy, if it proved the best way to deal with the matter, to meet representatives of the people concerned, because I have no doubt that we could satisfy them one way or the other that what they could legitimately expect would be carried out in this matter.

The simple answer to the question, why is Scotland different from England in this sense is that in Scotland a limited number of employees operate under conditions and in territory totally different from those in England. One of the reasons why we so frequently require separate legislation for Scotland is that the conditions in the two countries arc in some cases totally dissimilar. This is one such case. If the local authorities in the North of Scotland attempted to function as they do in the centre of Scotland, or as in the majority of cases in England, the cost of local government would be regarded by the ratepayers as being even more prohibitive than they now consider it.

LORD BURDEN

Do I understand that my noble friend will meet representatives and have this point out with them?

LORD HUGHES

I am quite happy to do so.

LORD BURDEN

I am grateful to my noble friend. May I remind him, although I am sure he does not need reminding, that local government staffs in Scotland were subjected to a salary or wage squeeze which affected 20,000 of them. They did not receive what was raid out to their English colleagues because, owing to the difference in dates, they were ruled out and prevented from receiving an increase. I wish to avoid a further feeling of injustice among the Scottish staffs arising out of this legislation. In the circumstances I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but if necessary I will put it down again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Does the noble Lord, Lord Burden, intend to move Amendment No. 6?

LORD BURDEN

Yes. We wish to consider the reply because the words "so far as practicable" are of a far-reaching nature and may differ from the conditions that have been given in England and Wales. The usual form of words concerning the terms and conditions on which transferred employees are to be taken over is that the acquiring authority takes them—and this is the substance of it—" on terms and conditions not less favourable" than those on which they were employed before transfer. I would urge that this leaves the acquiring authority with a measure of flexibility, so long as the terms and conditions are not rendered less favourable. This is the right and proper answer in the interests of the employees. In the present clause, however, these words are qualified by the addition of the words "which, so far as practicable, are". It is believed that these words are directed substantially to the question of status, and I seek to have them omitted.

I readily admit that in a reorganisation such as is proposed by the present Bill there are bound to be many cases of loss of status, for example, chief officers of a number of small undertakings will necessarily no longer be chief officers. It has always been accepted by those representing staff interests that loss of status is unavoidable in any large-scale reorganisation and that it would be wholly unrealistic to endeavour to try to preserve status.

This problem of status is one which has arisen in many regroupings under the Water Act 1945, and it also came up in the reorganisation of London government and in other local government reorganisations, such as the large-scale proposals in the West Midlands Order 1965, and in the constitution of the new county boroughs of Tees-side, Torbay and Hartlepool. In none of these cases has it been considered that the terms and conditions include questions of status. If the words proposed to be omitted were intended simply to cover status, the matter could be deal with in on unobjectionable way by adopting a form of words similar to that contained in the Orders under the 1945 Water Act—for example, Section 20(2) of the Central Flintshire Water Board Order 1964, which is in the following terms: Subject to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section the Board may employ any officer or servant who pursuant to the said subsection becomes an officer or servant of the Board in the discharge of such functions as they think proper and every such officer or servant shall perform such duties in relation to these functions as may be directed by the Board. The provision for the determination of disputes contained in Clause 21 of the present Bill is by no means sufficient to avoid any detriment from the words "so far as practicable". The real objection to the words is that they could be applied far beyond questions of status and, for example, might be regarded as justifying a regional board in laying down strictly uniform terms and conditions of service applicable to all employees in particular categories which adopt something less than the highest common denominator of the terms and conditions on which those employees were transferred.

It may seem that I am stressing just a form of words but there is more in it than that, These words, "so far as practicable", give wide-open space authority to any board to do practically what it would like to do and then argue that it was only practicable to do that. This is a matter which can easily be remedied. If it is simply a question of status, we can meet the problem of the need for flexibility in the way in which we have got over this in dozens of instances. And this one is not so unique that we cannot for once take an example which long experience in these matters has brought into existence and which has given satisfaction both to the authorities and to the staffs concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 36, leave out ("which, so far as practicable, are").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD HUGHES

I have little to add to what I have already said, other than to remind the noble Lord that, while we accept the general principle to which he is speaking, we cannot be certain that it would be possible for a board in every case to achieve what it has in mind if we delete these words. I would remind the noble Lord that there are two safeguards for employees. The authority can take him over and employ him on similar functions, where he is willing to enter the employment of the board. If he is asked to go in under conditions which he does not think satisfactory, he does not have to go. He can stay with his former authority. That is his first safeguard. Obviously, every employee, before deciding whether or not to transfer to the new board, will wait and see where the greatest advantage lies.

Assuming that he wishes to transfer, as I imagine he will if he is to be engaged solely in connection with water functions, Clause 21 specifically protects the rights of such a person where it is not practicable to give him everything that he had with his previous authority. In the unlikely event of a local authority doing what my noble friend fears—namely, that they use the words "so far as practicable" to deprive some employee of a position which he could be given but for ill-will or sheer "cussedness", or for any other reason, he has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State or to an arbiter appointed by the Secretary of State to resolve the matter. In these circumstances, it does not seem that any individual has anything to fear from the operation of these words.

The omission of these words will not enable a water board to give conditions which it is not practicable to carry out. The noble Lord has said that by omitting these words he would expect things to operate as if the words remained. But with the words in the Bill, and given the safeguards in Clause 21, I think it is inconceivable—even having regard to the dispute over the freeze to which the noble Lord referred—that the NALGO employees in Scotland will assume that the Secretary of State is necessarily going to side with some wicked local authority that is seeking to deprive an employee of the rights which the Bill expects him to be given, and rights which he would have according to the principles which the Government accept without reservation. If it would help my noble friend, I am willing, if I am to be meeting those for whom he is speaking on the other matter, to discuss this with them also; and I am certain that it will not be too difficult to persuade them that their fears in this matter are not well-founded.

LORD BURDEN

I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he is prepared to include this on the agenda when he discusses the other matter with the representatives of the staff. But I want to say, quite bluntly, that from my point of view, I do not regard Clause 21 as all-embracing of the problems which may arise. However, as my noble friend has agreed to discuss it, I will not press the Amendment further, and beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.22 p.m.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from "more than one board" to the end of the subsection, and to insert:

1. "(a) any person employed by the authority immediately before the second appointed day solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards shall on that day (where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board) be taken over and employed by that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid;
2. (b) any person employed by the authority immediately before the second appointed day partly in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards and partly in connection with the functions transferred to another or others of such boards, shall on that day (where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board concerned) be taken over and employed on such terms and conditions as aforesaid by such of those boards as may be agreed between the boards to whom the functions of the authority have been transferred or in default of agreement determined under the next following section."

The noble Lord said: This is a tricky little Amendment. It relates to the situation where an officer, probably an outstanding officer, is not only employed by his own water authority but, in view of the fact that some of these water authorities are small in character, may be employed by two or three of them. On the strict reading of the clause which I seek to amend, a man so employed would not be eligible for employment by any of the boards, because he is not "solely" engaged by the authority whose staff is taken over; he is working for other authorities, as well. Therefore, it is a case of faulty drafting. I will not read out the Amendment, and if my noble friend is generously inclined and would include this matter in the discussions he is to have, I shall be happy to withdraw it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 40, leave out from ("board") to end of line 45 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD HUGHES

I am quite certain that if I am meeting the people to whom my noble friend has referred on the first two items it would be beyond my power to prevent them from discussing the third one. I have no hesitation in saying that I am quite willing to listen to them and, if possible, agree with them.

LORD BURDEN

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 27 agreed to.

LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause:

Power of regional water boards and water development boards to promote or oppose private legislation

".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a regional water board or a water development board (in this section referred to as "a board") may petition for the issue of a provisional order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 or oppose any private legislation in Parliament where they are satisfied that it is expedient so to do, and may defray the expenses incurred in relation thereto.

(2) A board shall not petition for the issue of a provisional order as aforesaid without the consent of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall not give such a consent unless he is satisfied that the powers sought by the proposed order cannot be obtained by means of an order under the Water (Scotland) Acts 1946 to 1967.

(3) An application for the consent of the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section shall be accompanied by a concise summary of the purposes of the proposed order.

(4) In this section "private legislation in Parliament" includes a provisional order, and the confirmation Bill relating thereto under the said Act of 1936, and any local or personal Bill."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that regional water boards and water development boards will have power to promote and oppose private legislation. The provision does not signify any widening of the functions of the boards or any extension of their duties. It is, however, needed to achieve consistency and uniformity in relation to the boards' powers. At present, some local water authorities have powers under local enactments to promote private legislation, and these powers will transfer to the new boards. Local water authorities which are local authorities can promote private legislation under powers conferred by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947, but as these are not powers conferred on them as local water authorities they will not transfer to the new boards. It would be unsatisfactory for some of the new boards to have powers to promote private legislation and for others not to have such powers. We are working on the simple principle that it is easier to extend power to those who have it not than to try to take it away from those who have it at the present time, and uniformity is better served by giving them all these powers, although we think it may be that they will be required rarely. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

LORD HUGHES

I have already spoken to this Amendment on the Amendment submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—No. 6. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

Consultation with authorities in England

(".—(1) Where a region adjoins any part of England, and it appears to the regional water board that there may be water in watercourses or underground strata in that part of England, or in the region, which could be transferred from that part of England to the region, or from the region to that part of England, as the case may be, the regional water hoard shall, in so far as they consider it appropriate to do so, consult with the river authorities and other appropriate authorities in that part of England with a view to securing the best use of that water in the public interest.

(2) In the foregoing subsection the reference to water in underground strata shall be construed as a reference to water contained in strata subjacent to the surface of any land otherwise than in a sewer, pipe, reservoir, tank or other underground works constructed in any such strata.")—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Short title and extent]:

LORD HUGHES

This Amendment is necessary because the Bill as it stands applies only to Scotland, but because of the Amendment which has just been made, No. 9, providing reciprocal arrangements with England, it must apply to England as well. The Amendment, therefore, in this particular instance extends the operation of the Bill beyond Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 20, after ("Act") insert ("(except paragraph 14B of Schedule 2)").— (Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Regional Water Boards and their Regions, and the Area of the Central Scotland Water Development Board]:

4.26 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, to leave out from the list of regions in the North of Scotland Water Board, "Kirk-wall Town Council, Lerwick Town Council, Orkney County Council, Stromness Town Council". The noble Earl said: I think it would be convenient to your Lordships if we were to discuss with this Amendment all the Amendments standing in my name and those of noble Lords associated with me, including Amendment No. 14 in the name of Lord Henley alone. The effect of my Amendments would be that the Orkney group of islands would have one water board and the Shetland group of islands would likewise have one separate water board. The effect of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, No. 14, which is an alternative, would be that these two groups, the Orkney group and the Shetland group, should be amalgamated under one board, a solution which the islanders would be prepared to accept if it is the best that the Government can offer, and if it would keep them separate from the mainland, although they would regard it as a very poor second best.

I cannot claim to have any extensive knowledge of Orkney and Shetland, but I can testify to the great vigilance and efficiency of the water authorities in Shetland. Just after the Germans had acquired control of Norway in the summer of 1940 I was stationed in a bog about 5 miles from Lerwick for about eight months. I had to construct a number of machine-gun emplacements, protected by sandbags, as part of the defences of the island against possible German invasion from Norway. Near to our camp there was a large and beautiful loch called the Sandy Loch, surrounded with bright yellow sand, and I hastily sent some men from my company to fill their sandbags with this beautiful stuff. But I soon received urgent representations from the Lerwick Water Authority that the Sandy Loch was their main reservoir, and that they themselves had put this sand all the way round it to purify the water supply. So I had to go further afield for my material.

In the 1950s I spent part of one General Election in Orkney and Shetland making a number of speeches, I am afraid I must confess, in support of the candidate who was opposing the present sitting Member for Orkney and Shetland. In spite of this serious handicap, he was elected by a comfortable majority, and I think he has been a very good Member. I have studied the debates on this Bill in another place with complete impartiality and it seems to me that the arguments which the Member for Orkney and Shetland has so consistently and valiantly advanced on behalf of his constituents in another place have not received the consideration which they deserve.

I want to keep this discussion short, and I do not want to make it necessary for Lord Hughes to explain all the details of the discussions which have been taking place in the past two or three months between St. Andrew's House and the North of Scotland local authorities, for these discussions have been almost as complex and almost as changeable in their daily results as the United Nations' discussions about the Middle Eastern war. One day you hear that everybody has agreed on some compromise; the next day you hear that this compromise has been rejected with indignation and contumely by everybody concerned. But there is one aspect of these discussions which I must stress. If I understand rightly what was said in another place by the Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, the Government were prepared to allow Orkney and Shetland to remain separate from the mainland on two conditions: one, that Orkney and Shetland agree to amalgamate—which they are still willing to do; and the other that Ross and Cromarty should amalgamate with Caithness and Sutherland. I understand that an agreement at one moment on all these proposals was arrived at, but it was rejected by the constituents of all the local authorities' representatives almost the day after it had been made.

However, if the Government were willing to allow that Orkney and Shetland in combination should be independent that is a good thing in itself. I think it is quite wrong that the arrangements for local administration in Scotland should be determined by territorial bargaining of this kind. I think we should try to insert what we believe to be the best solution. If the inhabitants and representatives of Orkney and Shetland are willing freely and without pressure to combine in one water board I think that Parliament certainly ought to allow them to do so, and I should be very glad to support Lord Henley's Amendment No. 14 in preference to my own. But I think the most sensible solution is that each of these island groups should have its own water board. I am in favour of a great deal of regionalism—and I know that most of your Lordships are, too—for many of our functions in local government, on grounds of convenience, efficiency and economy.

But what are the main advantages of regionalism? One is convenience and one is contiguity. There is no contiguity between Orkney and Shetland and the mainland. There are no possibilities of water being piped from one to the other, and they are far more separate in timing than they are in distance. If your Lordships were asked to agree to the amalgamation of Surrey and Yorkshire under one water authority you would think this a very absurd proposal; but it would not be so absurd as this which we are now discussing. It takes longer to get from Shetland to Caithness than it does to get from Surrey to Yorkshire—a great deal longer—and it is a great deal more expensive. The return aeroplane fare from Lerwick to Wick a few months ago was between £8 and £9. Since then I believe that B.E.A. have put up their fares by about 30 or 40 per cent. In order to get to a meeting of the Board, the combined Northern Board in Wick, it would be necessary for a representative from Shetland to spend no less than three days and two nights away from his home.

If any of your Lordships was a farmer, a shopkeeper, a business man or a professional man living in Shetland, and supposing you were told that you had got to leave your business and go away—even if your expenses were paid—for three whole days in order to attend one meeting of the water board in Wick, what would you say? As an efficient, industrious citizen you would say, "No, it is not good enough; I am not willing to give that kind of public service which makes it necessary for me to go off on this long absence and have this very long and trying journey for one meeting". And if you were not an industrious and efficient citizen you would not be, in my opinion, a suitable representative of Shetland on the combined water board.

The only advantage in economy, so far as I can see, to Orkney and Shetland from this amalgamation might be that they would be able to get a consultant engineer to come up without having to pay him so much as they would if they had to pay the whole cost themselves. But they do not want that; they have all the water they need. Some people think they have far too much; they have a very heavy rainfall indeed. Every-body, in both Orkney and Shetland, already has an adequate supply of water, with the exception in each group of a very small handful of islands whose combined total population is only a few hundreds, and I understand that plans are already in hand to bring water supplies to those small islands. In my view they would get no benefit from an amalgamation. They might, on the other hand, have to pay very much higher water rates, bearing part of the expense of water schemes in the mainland which do not affect them; and that, in my submission, would be unfair.

I hope that the Government will think again about this matter on grounds of justice, common sense, and geography—and, I would add, history, because the population of Orkney and Shetland has a Norse history and it differs in culture and tradition from that of the mainland in the Highlands. I hope the Government will agree to give to these islanders the self-determination which is unanimously desired by the whole population and by all their elected representatives. Under this Bill 13 water authorities are set up—which is not supposed to be a lucky number. I hope I may persuade your Lordships to support me in trying to raise the number to the much more propitious figure of 15 or at least 14. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, leave out lines 20 to 23.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

4.42 p.m.

LORD HENLEY

We are discussing all these Amendments together, although the arguments are slightly different. I sandwiched my Amendment No. 14 between the noble Earl's Amendments, Nos. 13 and 15, not because I think it provides a better alternative, because it clearly does not. It is an alternative which is regarded by the islanders very much as second best. Nevertheless, after the very long negotiations which have gone on up to now, the state of affairs is that Orkney and Shetland have agreed, if this suits the Scottish Office better, to go in as one board, rather than to go on pressing for two. So as not to make it appear that Orkney and Shetland might have gone back on the agreement they have reached at the present moment with the Scottish Office, I thought it better to put in this alternative Amendment. I do not think I mind any more than the noble Earl does which Amendments the Government choose, if they are willing to listen to either. But it seems to me that it makes no sense either administratively or, as the noble Earl argued, democratically, to have Orkney and Shetland in with Caithness in this new water authority.

I do not want to go over the arguments again. We put forward some of them on Second Reading in this House, they were also dealt with very extensively in another place, and they were dealt with in the meeting that took place at St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh. I do not want to go over all those arguments again, but it seems to me that it really is a nonsensical solution to put Orkney and Shetland in with Caithness. It does not even fulfil the criteria laid down in the Report as to the physical factors involved. I cannot help feeling that the Scottish Office themselves felt this, because of the length of the negotiations, and because, when the series of Amendments were pressed in another place, the movers of the Amendments were given as near as possible an undertaking that something would be changed in the later stages of the Bill—as near an undertaking as they could conceivably have had. For some reason or other the Minister in charge of the Bill has hardened his heart against it and decided not to move. I do not know why.

One is very loth to move exactly the same Amendments in this House as were argued at such length in another place, but I think there is justification for it on this occasion. I do not think that all the relevant factors have been properly considered; and, as I say, I think some of my honourable friends in another place who originally moved these Amendments were—I will not say "led up the garden path", but were led very much to suppose that further consideration would be given, and that in fact has not been done.

What I feel in the context of Orkney and Shetland going in with Caithness is this: because a thing is big it is not necessarily the best form of organisation. What you have in Orkney and Shetland are a large number of islands and a considerable number of very small water schemes; all the islands are separated by a lot of water, and there are very difficult transport problems. The noble Earl said a good deal about the democratic aspects of this; about the difficulty of getting people to attend meetings on the mainland, particularly when the authority is going to Caithness, with which Orkney and Shetland have almost no connection at all. I think such connection as they have with the North of Scotland is with Inverness or Aberdeen. With Caithness they have almost none at all; and one supposes that this is where the new authority will be.

I am not so concerned myself with the democratic aspects of this, because I think that with something like this they can take care of themselves. But so far as administration is concerned, I do not think it can take care of itself. We have this large number of islands—I admit not all of them inhabited—with a large number of very small schemes over a very wide area, and I do not necessarily think that you are going to administer them better, or indeed more cheaply, by administering them from Caithness, Caithness being the chief water authority. I know that Caithness is a very go-ahead water authority—probably one of the best in the whole of Scotland—but I do not know that it will be any better by having Orkney and Shetland tacked on to it; and I cannot see that Orkney and Shetland are going to be better by being tacked on to it. I feel there is a point sometimes that a small parish pump is the best pump, and it seems to me that this is so so far as Orkney and Shetland are concerned.

I rather like the aspect that Orkney and Shetland use some of their staff from different departments to do certain aspects of the work, even for water. I do not think that this is a bad thing at all. I think that in any small organisation you frequently have an arrangement, of necessity, where everybody has to turn his hand to almost everything else, and the small organisations are none the worse for that. And, as I say, this does not seem to me to be a disadvantage from the point of view of running the Orkney and Shetland water supply.

Again, arguments are put forward that if you have a very big set-up you do not need to engage consultants; you have your own staff of consultants. I have said before, in other contexts, that I think the reason why we are so short of professional advisers in almost every field of technical endeavour in this country is that too many set-ups try to have their own staff of technical experts, and I think this is very often extremely wasteful. The right way to make use of available technical professional advice in this country is very often to use consultants and to use other experts. I am sure that Orkney and Shetland will not be better off than they have been in the past, using the services of the best consultant engineers, by being part and parcel of a large set-up which feels it must have its own staff, when often this is quite unnecessary. One of the reasons which appealed to me why Orkney and Shetland should not go in with Caithness is that it may encourage Caithness to have a larger staff than it really needs.

I think that all these arguments about administration and the servicing of the Orkney and Shetland water supply have been fairly fully put forward. I do not want to say much more about them, except to repeat that what is proposed seems to me to make absolute nonsense. It would be very much easier to administer and service the Orkney and Shetland water supply by a small local set-up. It would be more effective from the point of view of the local democratic representation, although, as I have said, that side does not appeal to me very much because I think that very often it can take care of itself. But there is the aspect that the morale of a declining community—and this is what some of these islands are; and we are trying to make them better in this respect—is given another knock by the difficulty of trying to administer these affairs in the way proposed. As the noble Earl said, it would be almost impossible for elected representatives to go to the mainland for all these meetings.

Having said that, and having argued my Amendment at this stage, I hope that we may be able to withdraw all our Amendments if only the Government will say that they will look at this again. I know they will say that they have already studied it in Scotland as far as they can, but I do not think this meets the case. For the sake of bureaucratic tidiness an error of judgment is being made, and I strongly support Amendment No. 11, standing in the name of the noble Earl and his noble friends and myself.

THE EARL OF CROMARTIE

I have not joined my name to any Amendment, for obvious reasons. I made it clear on the Second Reading of the Bill that I personally and the people I really represent in this have no objection whatsoever to Orkney and Shetland having what they want; but we should have considerable objection if, where we are dealing with the Highland counties and with many more people, we were not allowed to carry on as set down in this Bill which, so far as we are concerned, is a very good one. Ross and Cromarty, of which I am particularly speaking, has a far greater population than Orkney and Shetland. We also have the largest island in the Hebrides—the Island of Lewis.

As I say, we should naturally like Orkney and Shetland to get what they want, provided that it will not alter the conditions laid down in the Bill which suit the mainland and the big Highland counties extremely well. There is one thing I should like to get clear in my mind, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can answer this. If by chance there was an alteration to the advantage of Orkney and Shetland, would it mean a re-hash of this Bill'? If so, we should object very strongly.

LORD HUGHES

If I may deal with the last question first, the noble Earl places me in a real difficulty. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said in his opening remarks, my honourable friend the Minister of State, in the very protracted discussions which we had with all the local authorities concerned, expressed willingness to have a board on Orkney and Shetland provided that the Northern counties on the mainland got together. But, as the noble Earl pointed out, this they flatly refused to do. Ross and Cromarty—and I do not think they are being unreasonable in this matter—feel that their territory at the present time is so very large that to add to it the other large territories of Caithness and Sutherland is not something with which they wish to live. Of all the authorities I think probably Caithness is the one which has been most accommodating. It has in fact been excedingly helpful.

I must go over a fair amount of what has been done, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was rather unfair to the Government when he said that he expected I would say that we had gone into this thoroughly, and he did not think that this had been done. He said that it was being done for "bureaucratic tidiness". In fact if the Government had spent as much time in discussion on every piece of legislation that has come forward as they have on this particular aspect of the Bill, the business of government would have been much interfered with. The Government have gone out of their way to try to find agreed solutions to this matter, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, between them have reiterated the main arguments which have been put forward by Orkney and Shetland throughout.

Some of these arguments are not nearly so good as the noble Lords would have us believe. In the first instance, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, implied, and the counties of Orkney and Shetland have stated, that the proposal is not consistent with the Water Advisory Committee's general principles that the boundaries of areas should be determined primarily by physical considerations. To argue in this way shows a failure to understand the philosophy underlying the Scottish Water Advisory Committee's Report. This is not something which the Government did out of bureaucratic tidiness; this is the suggestion of the Advisory Committee.

The Committee considered that there were far too many individual water authorities in Scotland, and that they must be drawn together in regional groupings. No one disputes that, but the problem is how the country should be divided into regions of a size suitable for efficient operation. Having reached broad conclusions on this, the Committee had to look at the precise boundaries, and it is at this point that the principle applies that the boundaries should be determined in relation to physical considerations. The Committee are saying, for example, that catchment areas should, as far as possible, not be divided. They say that it is better to draw a boundary between regions along the top of a mountain range rather than across the bottom of a valley. To anybody who reads the Report with care it is clear that the Committee never intended to mean that every mountain range and every stretch of sea should be a boundary of a region. If the principle followed by the Committee carried the implication which the authorities in Orkney and Shetland would like to place on it, it would not mean simply that Orkney and Shetland should not be combined in a region with part of the mainland; it would mean that these should be separate regions for the different islands in the Orkneys and in the Shetlands. They did not carry it to that conclusion because they have had to join together in the past.

The second point is that because of the physical separation of the islands from the rest of the proposed region amalgamation with the mainland would do nothing to improve supplies in the islands. Again this does not follow. It is of course true that we do not envisage a large-scale physical connection between the mainland and the islands by means of water supply pipes laid under the sea. But improvements do not come about only by connections of this sort. The Scottish Water Advisory Committee stressed that the purpose of the wider administrative unit they proposed was to strengthen the resources for the operation and maintenance of the water service in the region. In the same way, resources in other islands round the coast are strengthened by their links with the mainland, and the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, referred to a case in point. When this was pointed out to the County Councils of Orkney and Shetland, their reaction was, "But the other islands have always been administered as part of mainland counties", So I think I am quite fair in drawing the conclusion that the argument for Orkney and Shetland is really for their complete inviolability. Their reaction is simply against change, and is not founded on any sort of principle.

The third point is that difficulties in communication would cause serious inconvenience, and the noble Earl referred to the air fare which perhaps would be involved. We recognise, of course, that the creation of larger regions in Scotland must involve more travel. It will happen in every one of them, and we appreciate that when one gets outside the central region the distances to be covered are often very considerable, and sometimes travel is not easy. It is probably the case that the greatest difficulties will be experienced in the North of Scotland region. Nevertheless, the difficulties seem to us to have been exaggerated. In another place, the honourable Member for Orkney and Shetland seemed to think that an engineer would have to fly from Wick every time a minor repair was needed in one of the islands. Of course this is not the case. The operation and maintenance of the water installations will continue to be undertaken by local staff. The senior staff of the Board and the members of the Board will of course have to travel between the islands and the mainland, but not very frequently. It is probable that once the Board have settled in they will not need to meet more than about once a quarter, and that meetings will be held in different places, such as Lerwick, Kirkwall and Wick, in rotation, to suit the convenience of members.

Then the question of cost was raised. This has been frequently mentioned by local authorities and others. The local authorities have not produced any figures to support this argument and it seems to us that it has been thrown in on the principle of throwing in everything, including the kitchen sink. The only figure which has been mentioned is that the domestic water rate in the landward area of Caithness, at 4s. 6d. in the pound, is the highest in Scotland.

The financing of these Highland water schemes is highly complex. There is no doubt that it is very expensive to provide piped water for sparsely scattered communities. It is because of this that all the county councils in the North of Scotland receive substantial grants towards new schemes under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Acts. The remainder of the capital cost, together with the running expenses, has to be met from local rates. It may interest your Lordships to know that if this balance of cost were met wholly by the consumers the domestic water rates in the landward areas of the four counties would be as follows: Sutherland 8s. 6d. in the pound, Caithness 1ls, Orkney 22s, Shetland 34s.—for water alone, if they were paying for it themselves as a domestic water rate. But there is an arrangement under the Water (Scotland) Act 1949 by which contributions towards water costs are made from the general county rates, and the effect of this is that a substantial part of the cost of water in these areas is met by other ratepayers who do not have a public water supply.

In addition, some of the costs are met by ratepayers in other parts of Scotland, through the operation of the rate support grant arrangements. This significantly reduces the domestic water rates in the North. Arrangements of this sort are continued and extended by the Bill. We accept that this is an essential thing in communities with resources such as these counties have. The arrangements are very flexible, and we think it is right that they should be, because the sensible thing is not to forgo the benefits of regionalisation by possible financial effects but to get the regions right, and to ensure that once this is done it is possible to make financial arrangements which provide a reasonable degree of equity and prevent any unreasonable degree of hardship.

Looked at generally, the objections to the proposals in the Bill are not solidly based, and little in the way of sound argument has been advanced in support of separate authorities for the islands. In fact, the case amounts to little more than a plea that the islands should be left on their own, and such objections as have been made are really all directed to this point: "We have always been separate and we want to continue being separate".

May I come to the grounds for combination? I may say that, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suspected, the matter has been looked at very carefully. The noble Earl spoke of all the comings and goings and of frequent meetings and discussions taking place between the authorities concerned and the authorities and the Government. Noble Lords are aware of the fact that at the beginning of the year there was a change of departmental responsibility in the Scottish Office. I then took over direct responsibility for these matters. The present Minister of State formerly had responsibility. But these water proposals were so far advanced in consideration that it was a reasonable thing that my honourable friend, the Minister of State, should carry the thing through to its completion, particularly as a Bill was, in any event, to come before another place in the first instance and he would be handling it there. I therefore came directly into these matters only at a very late stage, and because of this I can assure your Lordships that I have gone very fully into the matter again, in my departmental responsibility, having regard to the fact that I should be speaking to it in this House. I have examined these objections and the attempts to reconcile interests which have in fact proved to be impossible of reconciliation.

We come back to the grounds which persuaded the Advisory Committee that this was the best way of creating the regions. It is not a criticism of the water service as it has been provided in the past, but rather it highlights the limitation of the engineering framework on which it is based. Most Highland county councils have built up sound engineering units to operate and maintain not only their water services but also other services, such as roads, drainage and sewerage. The units are headed by qualified engineers, but because of smaller populations in the Highland counties the number of technically qualified supporting staff is in no instance very large, and few of them are able to specialise on one service. Under the North of Scotland Board, as proposed in the Bill, a four-county combination would enable the staff available for the water service in that area to be strengthened. With the broader-based organisation the water engineer for the Board would probably be supported by one or two full-time qualified assistants for water, and this would enable him to carry out the design and supervision of most of the new works required in the region, and so to reduce the present dependence on consulting engineers.

It was implied, I think, at least by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this business of relying on consulting engineers was a good one and probably the cheapest way of doing the job. It will probably come as a surprise to him when I say that since the end of the war the four counties involved have spent a quarter of a million pounds on consulting engineers, and having regard to the resources of these counties that cannot be considered a small sum of money. On the other hand, the restrictions of size and rateable resources would make it difficult for either Orkney or Shetland to build up their staffing strength for design and construction work on their own. The population of Orkney is about 19,000 and of Shetland about 18,000, and, as stated in the Advisory Committee's Report: …if the resources for the operation and maintenance of the service in these counties are to be significantly strengthened, the local water authorities in them must become part of a wider administrative unit able to provide the skilled management and other facilities necessary for this purpose". Another advantage, perhaps a minor one, which might be expected to derive from a four-county Board would be in buying stores in larger quantities, and the area as a whole would benefit from bulk buying arrangements and from being able to carry larger stocks of spares.

In conclusion I would say, as has been pointed out many times since the Bill was introduced, that piecemeal adjustments of boundaries cannot be agreed in isolation and without regard to their effect on the other authorities concerned. The Government have tried to reconcile the views of all the authorities in the North of Scotland region, and the discussions which have taken place with the local authorities have shown that the only practicable alternative to the Schedule 1 arrangement would be that canvassed by the Minister of State at his meeting with the authorities on March 31. That was: first, a Board comprising Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross and Cromarty; and second, a Board comprising Orkney and Shetland. It has, however, proved impossible to reach agreement with the authorities on such a compromise, and in the circumstances the Secretary of State has no alternative but to proceed with what he regards as the best possible combination in the wider public interest.

I come back to the point at which I started in replying to this discussion—the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. If the House carried this Amendment to make Orkney and Shetland, either separately or together, separate boards, would this mean going back to the combination of Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty? I do not know. Another place decided that in the absence of agreement the only safe thing to do was to adhere to the recommendations of the Water Advisory Committee. But if your Lordships, against the advice which I strongly tender to you, insert an Amendment of this kind, it is not impossible, although I must admit I think it is extremely unlikely, that another place would decide to reverse their judgment. But if they did decide to reverse their decision they might feel that the only way of doing it was to go on to the other combination. I should hope that they would not do that, but would rather adhere to the Bill as it stands, because it would merely be seeking to placate the unjustified objections of Orkney and Shetland by completely disregarding the much more soundly based objections of Ross and Cromarty. I therefore cannot advise the Committee to accept either of the Amendments proposed, a single board or two new boards.

5.11 p.m.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I am sure we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the manner in which he has dealt with this Amendment and the great detail into which he has gone. But what is at the back of my mind (and I do not think he has explained it, at any rate not so far as I understood him) is: what is wrong with the water supply to-day in Orkney and in Shetland? That is the first thing. Is it falling short of what it should be, or what is the situation? Then again, is it foreseen that anything is going to be done to benefit the people of Orkney and Shetland by way of a much superior water supply coming their way. If one had a clear indication of those things, I think it would help us a little. I know that the noble Lord has dealt with the matter generally and has put forward the view that has been expressed. Nevertheless, I wonder how much these people are going to benefit from an improved water supply as a result of what is proposed.

Turning to my other point, the noble Lord spoke of the enormous cost of water supply in such places as Orkney and Shetland. It is quite obvious that, with all these small islands, it must be a very expensive business. But, again, are the islanders going to benefit financially from all this? Will there be, under the proposed scheme, a spread of the total cost that will make the position in the Orkneys and Shetland better than it is at present? If the noble Lord, without going to great lengths, could satisfy us on these points I should be most grateful.

LORD HUGHES

I will endeavour in a few words to do what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asks. It is perfectly true that there is no immediate intention, or even a foreseeable intention, of greatly expanding the water supply in either the Orkney or the Shetland Islands. But the one thing that is quite certain is that with such a board any expansions or improvements as are necessary will be much more easily carried out by a four-county board than by either one or other of these boards doing it on their own—unless, of course, we accept that the intolerable expense of doing operations of this kind can be accepted on the basis that, at the end of the day, it is not Orkney or Shetland that has to face the bill, and that because of the grant arrangements, and particularly the rate support grant, the burden is in any event transferred to other parts of the country.

If we had not in fact found it necessary in past years to give exceptional support, not only to these Islands but also to the northern counties because of the paucity of their rating resources, they would not have had their present water supply, and probably would have been clamouring to be joined on to other authorities so that they should have that benefit. What they are seeking to do is to continue to have all the benefits of isolation without any of its disadvantages. Therefore, I do not suggest to the noble Lord that there is any expectation of large alterations in supplies taking place.

No one is in a better position than the noble Lord to know that when you are dealing with things buried under the ground you never know when a considerable bill will need to be faced. I have this situation at the present time. I am considering an application from a small water undertaking in the North to be allowed to go ahead with a scheme, even in anticipation of regionalisation taking place next year, because they have just discovered something which they did not know a year ago: that damage to their supplies was leading to a possible danger to public health through the contamination by the filtering into it of bog water, of what was in the beginning a pure water supply. They did not know of this until recently, but they have discovered it, and it has brought about a completely new situation which must be faced immediately. This is the sort of thing that is likely to happen, and a four-county authority will be in a better position to meet it.

It follows, therefore, that because of the eventual equalisation of charges over an area, Orkney and Shetland stand to gain at the expense of Caithness in this matter. This is why I said that Caithness was being extremely co-operative. They have nothing to gain financially from Orkney and Shetland being joined on to them, other than the sort of advantage which Orkney and Shetland will have of being able to employ their own skilled staff on the work, which in many cases will mean they will not need to have recourse to outside consultative advice. I would remind your Lordships of the figures that I quoted in this matter; and it is because of these things that it is likely that the local authorities will in due course have cheaper water than they otherwise would.

I do not think I can condense this matter any more. I doubt whether I could give much more information to the noble Lord if I were to elaborate on it much further. I really believe that there is advantage to all three of the authorities from this combination between the Islands and the mainland; and I am quite certain that, should your Lordships carry this Amendment the Government will not feel able to advise another place to accept it.

I have just been given a note with regard to the domestic water rates under the different regional water boards arrangement. If there were a board combining Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland, the domestic rate would be 4s. 9d. For Orkney and Shetland on their own, the domestic water rate would be 6s. 2d. With Orkney as a separate authority, the domestic water rate would he 5s. 2d. Taking Shetland as a separate authority, the domestic water rate would be 7s. 2d. So the immediate difference at the present time is that, as compared with the combined Orkney and Shetland Board, Orkney will be getting water at 1s. 5d. in the pound less in the four-county combination than in a two-county combination. Orkney will be getting it at 5d. less, and Shetland will be getting it at 2s. 5d. less than if there were two separate boards for Orkney and Shetland.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I thank the noble Lord most sincerely for that further elucidation of the matter.

5.20 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I think we have really threshed this argument out as far as possible. I should like to reiterate what my noble friend has just said, and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that full explanation of his side of the story. It seems to me that we on this side of the House have failed to convince him, and I think that he in his turn has failed to convince us about this Bill. Common sense dictates that the two groups of Islands about which we are talking should be a separate entity under this Bill. All the evidence shows that their water supply systems work perfectly satisfactorily, that

they have excellent staffing facilities and that they can be operated on the spot. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, says, there is a quite difficult problem of transport and communication, particularly from the Shetland group of Islands to the mainland, whether it be to Aberdeen, or to Wick, or wherever it may be.

A further point to be considered is that at the moment there are qualified engineers working in the Islands, and if these undertakings are amalgamated under the Bill there is a likelihood that such people will leave the Islands and go to the mainland. This would he a great pity and would certainly not help to solve the problem of the depopulation of the Islands, for unless there are opportunities for skilled and qualified people, it is difficult to keep the economy of these places operating. What we are arguing about here is the needs of the Islands, and to a certain extent what happens on the mainland is irrelevant.

I was glad to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is to some extent a protagonist of regionalism, as indeed I think are all your Lordships, but I believe that regionalism can be carried too far. I should like to end by quoting from the evidence given by the Institution of Municipal Engineers to the Water Advisory Committee: Where a county area is within a reasonably defined watershed and has ample resources within its boundaries, there appears to be no justification whatever to go outside these boundaries and to introduce regionalisation simply for the sake of creating a larger unit of authority. This would do nothing to improve efficiency and would only lead to dissatisfaction from the smaller areas who would not be able to command a very large representation on any hoard that may he formed I believe that that sums up our argument on this side of the House, and I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer.

5.23 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Atholl, D.	Carrington, L.
Ailwyn, L.	Boston, L.	Colville of Culross, V.
Airedale, L.	Bradford, E.	Craigmyle, L.
Allerton, L.	Brooke of Cumnor, L.	Daventry, V.
Ampthill, L.	Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.	Dilhorne, V.
Amulree, L.	Burton, L.	Drumalbyn, L.
Dundee, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Moyne, L.
Dundonald, E.	Ilford, L.	Oakshott, L.
Erroll of Hale, L.	Inglewood, L.	Poulett, E.
Falkland, V.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Fraser of Lonsdale, L.	Lambert, V.	St. Just, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L.	Limerick, E.	Sandford, L.
Gage, V.	Lothian, M.	Sempill, Ly.
Goschen, V. [Teller.]	MacAndrew, L.	Somers, L.
Grenfell, L.	McCorquodale of Newton, L.	Strange of Knokin, Bs
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Hawke, L.	Mancroft, L.	Thurlow, L.
Headfort, M.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Vivian, L.
Henley, L.[Teller.]	Milverton, L.	Wolverton, L.
Horsbrugh, Bs.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Wrottesley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Huntingdon, E.	Rowley, L.
Bowles, L. [Teller.]	Kennet, L.	Royle, L.
Brockway, L.	Latham, L.	St. Davids, V.
Burton of Coventry, Bs.	Leatherland, L.	Shepherd, L.
Champion, L.	Longford, E. [L. Privy Seal.]	Snow, L.
Citrine, L.	Maelor, L.	Sorensen, L.[Teller.]
Faringdon, L.	Mitchison, L.	Stonham. L.
Gaitskell, Bs.	Morrison, L.	Stow Hill, L.
Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]	Moyle, L.	Walston, L.
Hilton of Upton, L.	Pargiter, L.	Wells-Pestell, L.
Hughes, L.	Phillips, Bs.	Winterbottom, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

I beg to move. On a point of explanation, perhaps it will save time if I say that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 13, but will allow the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to move Amendment No. 14.

Amendment moved—

Page 22, leave out line 27.—(The Earl of Dundee.)

LORD HUGHES

I think I should also explain that I do not propose to carry to a Division Amendment No. 12 or Amendment No. 14. However, my objections to them remain just as strong as if I did divide on the matter.

LORD HENLEY

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 23, line 24, at end insert—

("10A. The Orkney and Zetland Water Board	Limits of supply of:— Kirkwall Town Council Orkney County Council Stromness Town Council Lerwick Town Council Zetland County Council")
	—(Lord Henley.)

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Regional water boards and their regions, and the Area of the Central Scotland Water Development Board]:

LORD HUGHES

We now get back to the placid waters of drafting Amend- ments. These adaptations of provisions in the New Towns Act 1946 relating to water supply functions of local authorities are consequential on the provisions of the Bill transferring such functions to regional water boards. The Amendments do not derogate in any way from the existing powers of development corporations. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 22, at end insert— 1946 c.68. (".In the New Towns Act 1946—

1. (a) in section 9 as read with section 25(11)—
1. (i) in subsection (1), the word "water" shall be omitted, and
2. (ii) in subsection (2), (3) and (4), after the words "local authority" wherever occurring there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the regional water board", and
2. (b) in section 25(23) after the expression "local authority" where first ocurring there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, a regional water board", and
3. (c) in section 26(1), there shall be inserted the following definition—

"regional water board" has the meaning assigned to it by section 31(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967.").—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD HUGHES

This is a consequential Amendment to the Water Resources Act 1963, arising from the transfer of functions from local water authorities to regional water boards under the Bill. Section 127 of the Act deals with consultation between river authorities in England and local water authorities in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 22, at end insert— (" 14B. In the Water Resources Act 1963, in section 127—

1. (a) in subsection (1), for the words "local water authorities" there shall be substituted the words "regional water boards"; and
2. (b) in subsection (2), for the words from " " local water authority " " to "1946" there shall be substituted the words " " regional water board "and" river purification authority "have the meanings assigned to them respectively by section 31(1) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967".")—(Lord Hughes.)

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.