§ 11.20 a.m.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD)My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
§ Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered. —(Lord Sandford.)
§ On Question. Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ [No. 1]
§ Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert " but as if in the said subsection (3) for the words 'river authority' there were substituted the words 'parties'".
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The Bill confers powers on water undertakings and river authorities to enter into agreements. As originally drafted, it provided for these agreements to contain such provisions " as appear to the river authority necessary or expedient ". This form of words was felt by some, including my noble friends Lord Ilford and lord Waldegrave, to create an appearance of imbalance as between the parties to such agreements. The new formula should remove any suspicions on the part of water undertakers but should not impair the powers and responsibilities of the river authorities. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENTS
§ [Nos. 2 and 3]
§ Clause 2, page 3, line 4, leave out from " section " to second " at " in line 5 and insert "which—
- (i) authorises the making of discharges of water".
§ Clause 2, page 3, line 8, after " beauty". insert "within the meaning of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: or
- (ii) specifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded."
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
There are two points on these Amendments. First, during the Committee proceedings in another place it was argued that, as the Bill was drafted, any order authorising discharges of water which had originated, however remotely, in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. These Amendments are intended to remove any doubt about the scope of the provision for orders authorising discharges of water derived directly from a source wholly or (as may be the case with a reservoir) partly in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty to be subject to Negative Resolution. But orders authorising a discharge from, say. a river running from a National Park, where the water is abstracted at a point outside the Park. Will not be subject to the Negative Resolution, since the water there would not be abstracted or impounded at a place either wholly or partly within a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty.
The second point is a legal one, to define the name " area of outstanding natural beauty " by reference to the Act which provided for them to be established. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendmcnts.—(Lord Sandford.)
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, we are at one on the substance, but I should like to be reassured by the noble Lord about the wording here. This was the point about which we in this House thought that, if a reservoir were to be created in a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty, then the order creating it should be subject to the Negative Resolution Procedure in Parliament, and we so amended the Bill. Then the Government found that we had overdone it somewhat and had made a lot of abstractions outside National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty subject to Parliamentary approval, as the noble Lord has just explained, and everyone agreed that there was no point in this. So the Bill was amended again in the House of Commons to take those abstractions 724 out of Parliamentary control. So far we are together.
However, I should like to be reassured that, in the form of words we have before us, there is not a danger that a Scheme for a reservoir that is to be built half in and half out of a National Park, and from which the water is to be abstracted outside the National Park, might not come before Parliament. I think that it would be the wish of both Houses that it should come before Parliament. For that reason I seek reassurance on the wording.
Looking at the Bill in its present form, as amended by the House of Commons, one finds that the order is to come before the House either if it
authorises the making of discharges of water … within a National Parkor if itspecifies such a place as a place at which water to be discharged in pursuance of the order is to be abstracted or impounded".The words which worry me are:at which water…is to be…impounded ".My question to the noble Lord is this. Is water impounded at the dam, which may be outside the National Park although the head of the reservoir may be in the National Park, or is water impounded at the reservoir taken as a whole and defined in such a way that it will be clear that part of it lies within the National Park? The question is really in what form the Secretary of State will make orders. Will they always include a geographical definition of the entire reservoir? And in that case, will the word " at " in the Bill apply to the entire reservoir as so defined?
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. It is an important matter and it will be a very good thing to get it absolutely clear and on the record. I am also grateful to him for having given me advance notice of the point he intended to raise. I was thus able to look into the matter thoroughly. I can confirm as follows. The order authorising a discharge will specify a place— in cases of this kind the reservoir or the site of the proposed reservoir where the water to be discharged is to be impounded. I am advised that " place " for this purpose means the whole reservoir or the whole site. If any part of it is within a National 725 Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty, its specification will render the order subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Furthermore, under the Bill the Secretary of State has power to modify the terms of any draft order submitted for his approval. He will thus be able to ensure that the order is correctly drawn from that point of view.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, I am grateful for those reassurances, which will be of the greatest interest to all concerned in this matter throughout the country.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ [No. 4]
§ In the Schedule, page 4, line 27, leave out " twenty-eight days " and insert "six weeks".
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7 is to extend the period during which a draft order authorising the discharge of water is available for inspection and during which objections may be made to the Secretary of State, from 28 days to six weeks. This is in recognition of the difficulties which face some people living in remote rural areas who may have to travel considerable distances to inspect orders and maps. My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
§ COMMONS AMENDMENT
§ [No. 5]
§ In the Schedule, page 4, line 35, after "situated", insert——
- " (b) every nagivation authority, harbour authority and conservancy authority appearing to the river authority to have functions relating to any inland water into which any of the proposed discharges may be made;
- (c) all statutory water undertakers appearing to the river authority to be entitled to abstract water from any inland water or underground stratum at places at which it appears to the authority that the flow, level or quality of the water may be affected by any of the proposed discharges;"
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, in its original form the Bill confined the right to receive notice of an application for an order authorising discharges of water to local authorities
within whose area any discharge point is situated726 and to those persons or bodies who have notified the river authority in advance that they require such notice. After further consideration, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it was right to extend the notice requirements, and the Amendment requires notice to be served additionally as follows: first, on every navigation, harbour and conservancy authority appearing to the river authority to have functions relating to an inland water into which discharges are to be made; secondly, on all statutory water undertakers appearing to the river authority to be entitled to abstract water at any place at which it appears to the river authority that the source concerned may be affected by the proposed discharges. Thirdly, the general position is safeguarded by the provision in paragraph 3(d) of the Schedule to the Bill, which provides that other persons or bodies who are not specifically named but who, nevertheless, wish to receive notices of applications for orders authorising discharges may still do so by giving notice to that effect in advance to the appropriate river authority. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ COMMONS AMENDMENTS
§ [Nos. 6 and 7]
§ In the Schedule, page 5, line 6, after " to", insert " the period of twenty-eight days referred to in".
§ In the Schedule, page 5, line 7, after second " to", insert " the period of six weeks referred to in".
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which I have already described.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD STRANGEI am sure I am wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but I have searched this Bill through from end to end and I have seen no—