HL Deb 09 July 1973 vol 344 cc509-26

2.58 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.— (Baroness Young.)

On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments.

Clause 3 [Members of water authorities]:

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD) moved Amendment No. 1: Page 5, line 6, leave out ("in") and insert ("as respects").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move the first Amendment, This is a drafting Amendment and is intended to make it clear that the area of a water authority is the area as respects which they are responsible for the discharge of any given functions, although the discharge of those functions may in certain circumstances involve them in taking action outside that area as well as inside it. It is necessary to be precise because the population formula in Clause 3(b) relates the representation of counties on regional water authorities to the proportion of their population which is resident within the regional water authority's area.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Directions to water authorities]:

LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2: Page 8, line 44, at end insert ("but before giving a direction to water authorities generally, the appropriate Minister or Ministers shall consult the Council about the proposed direction").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which is little more than a technical Amendment. It requires the appropriate Minister or Ministers to consult the National Water Council before giving a direction to water authorities generally under Clause 5 of the Bill. As the Council will be the collective voice of the water authorities, this requirement is clearly appropriate. The Amendment implements an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development when a similar Amendment was moved at Committee stage in another place. My Lords, I beg to move.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, I would say very briefly that although the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that this is a technical Amendment, we regard it as a step in the right direction in helping to build up what might otherwise be not very impressive powers of the National Water Council.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Supply of water by statutory water companies on behalf of water authorities]:

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. In the interest of clarity, Amendment No. 4 should state after the word ("limits") "in line 7". These are two drafting Amendments. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 11, leave out ("undertakes") and insert ("undertake").

Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("enable") to ("limits") in line 7 and insert ("them to meet the foreseeable demands of consumers within their").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (8) and insert— ("(8) Subject to the provisions of any order made under section 254 of the 1972 Act as applied by section 35 below, so much of the enactments relating to the undertaking of a statutory water company as imposes on the company any duty to supply water, except Part VIII of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 (supply for public purposes) and any local statutory provision which is similar to any provision of that Part, shall cease to have effect.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The present subsection (8) of this clause terminates the duties laid upon statutory water companies by local enactments to supply water. But it is necessary to make this termination subject to the provisions of consequential and transitional orders which may be made under Section 254 of the Local Government Act 1972, as applied for the purposes of the Bill, and this Amendment makes this clear. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 16, line 11, leave out subsection (9) and insert—("(9) For sections 12 and 13 of the Water Act 1945 (supply of water in bulk and default powers) there shall be substituted the sections set out in Part I of Schedule [Supply of water in bulk and default powers] to this Act. (10) Sections 2(1)(b) and 4 and 4(2) to (4) of the Water Act 1948 (which also relate to the supply of water in bulk) shall cease to have effect. (11) Part 11 of Schedule [Supply of water in bulk and default powers] to this Act shall have effect in relation to the making and confirmation of orders by a water authority under sections 12 and 13 of the Water Act 1945 as substituted by Part I of that Schedule.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 17, 17A, 23 and 31. I should also like to say that there is a small printing error in Amendment No. 23, which appears on page 6 of the Marshalled List. Although these Amendments are of very considerable length, I should like to assure the House that they do not change the substance of the Bill at all. What they do is to set out in a much more comprehensible and satis- factory manner certain essential but non-controversial provisions about two matters. The first is bulk supplies of water to statutory water undertakers, and the second is the taking of default action by a water authority against a statutory water company. These provisions are at present Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill.

These two clauses make modifications to Section 12, which covers the supply of water in bulk, and Section 13, which covers the default powers of the Secretary of State, of the Water Act 1945. The effect of these Government Amendments will be to substitute in the 1945 Act new Sections 12 and 13 containing all the necessary modifications, and to prescribe in the Bill the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders by water authorities, either on the compulsory giving or taking of a bulk supply by a statutory water company, or in declaring the company to be in default. Inter alia, such orders will require to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. This matter has been set out fully and at length in these Amendments, in order to make it more comprehensible for people working through the Bill than if it were set out by reference. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 7: Transpose the last subsections of Clause 12 to the end of Clause 7.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to bring together in one clause—that is, Clause 7—the provisions of the Bill relating to working arrangements between water authorities and other bodies, which are all based upon the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Amendment of provisions as to supply of water in bulk]:

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 13.—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16 [Arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions]:

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9: Page 21, line 32, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The context of paragraph (a) of subsection (8) of Clause 16 indicates that the reference should be to the committee which, by virtue of this subsection, is discharging functions on behalf of the local authority which appointed it and not just to any committee. I beg to move.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, this is not the place at which I had rather hoped the Government would insert the definite, rather than the indefinite, article—which was Clause 4—but we have no objection to this change.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Requisitioning of sewers for domestic purposes]:

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 23, line 39, at end insert— ("(a) as to the qualifying amount in the case of any premises").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like to speak at the same time to Nos. 11 and 12. The purpose of these three Amendments is to make any disagreement over the expense involved in laying a sewer and associated sewerage on requisition subject to arbitration. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.

Amendment moved— Page 24, leave out lines 4 to 13 and insert ("qualifying amount", in relation to any premises, means one eighth of the expense of providing such a sewer as is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subsection (1) above in the case of those premises and of providing any other sewer which it is necessary or appropriate to provide in consequence").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

Amendment moved—

Page 24, line 22, at end insert— ("(11A) A sewer shall be treated for the purposes of this section as used for domestic purposes if it is used for removing the contents of a lavatory or removing water used for cooking or washing other than water used for the business of a laundry or a business of preparing food or beverages for consumption otherwise than on the premises.").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 [Duties with regard to nature conservation and amenity]:

LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 13: Page 29, line 14, leave out "Natural Environment Research" and insert "Nature Conservancy".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 29 which is identical. These two Amendments substitute references to the new Nature Conservancy Council for references to the Natural Environment Research Council in the two places in which the latter is at present mentioned in the Bill. This is to take account of the provisions of the current Nature Conservancy Bill. We have already dealt with that Bill in this House and it received its Second Reading in another place on July 4, so it is not yet enacted, But in view of the advanced stage that it has reached, it is now considered preferable to deal with the change of name in this way, rather than to adopt the alternative and clumsier course of waiting until the Water Bill receives the Royal Assent and then moving Amendments to the Nature Conservancy Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.

BARONESS WHITE

My Lords, we are entirely in agreement with this. It seems much the most sensible way to proceed. Looking at the duties which are dealt with in the two places in this Bill referred to by the noble Lord, it would appear that they fall pretty clearly on the side of the Nature Conservancy Council rather than on the side of the Natural Environment Research Council. So we would entirely concur with the proposed change.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 14: Page 29, line 19, leave out second ("the") and insert ("that").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 14, which is still dealing with the same point of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council. This is a drafting Amendment by which it is intended to make it clear that the council referred to at the close of subsection (3), now that we have passed the previous Amendment, is the Nature Conservancy Council and not the National Water Council. A misunderstanding might arise because the term "the council" is used everywhere else throughout the Bill to mean the National Water Council. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.12 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 15: After Clause 30 insert the following new clause:

Restriction on disposal of local authority undertakings

"30A. It shall not be lawful for a local authority to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of its interest in any undertaking for the supply of water, or in the revenues or assets of that undertaking, revenues or assets, and any such sale, lease, disposal or agreement entered into since the 31st October 1972 shall be void and of no effect."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the new clause which I now move is a simple one. It is to stop the sale of local authority-owned water undertakings to statutory water companies and to cancel sales already made since the general proposals of the Government for water became known. The date chosen in the Amendment for the latter purpose is that of the gracious Speech outlining the Government's programme of legislation for the 1972–73 Session, in which, of course, this Water Bill was forecast. Let me make it clear that I do not blame those local authorities for their enterprise in selling or in trying to sell their water undertakings, but I very much blame the Government for permitting it to happen, for transactions of that nature are bound to put other local authorities who have not sold their water undertakings in a wholly disadvantageous position.

What we have to do here is to ask ourselves what is going to be the result of the sales that are taking place, or have already taken place, by local authorities to statutory water companies. The local authorities selling their water undertakings are to benefit considerably from their sales, but when eventually the decision is made to take over those companies, as will inevitably take place sooner or later, the ratepayers in the localities which have had their undertakings handed over to the new water authorities without, be it noted, compensation, will have to help to pay for the undertakings sold to the companies. If I may take two of the transactions now taking place as an illustration, the Watford Corporation is in process of selling its water undertaking to the Colne Valley Water Company. This will be done by means of the Colne Valley Water Order 1973, which is now in draft. The consideration for that transfer is £791,500 plus a sum equal to the expendable stores and a sum equal to the difference between the aggregate amount of any expenditure discharged by the corporation on capital connected for the purpose of its undertaking and the aggregate amount of any loan repayment due in respect of expenditure on the undertaking.

Now how much will be the net gain to the Watford Corporation I do not know, for it is clear that, vis-à-vis the local authority water undertakings, the relief from loan repayments will be much the same in both cases, for the local authority whose undertaking is being taken over by the water authority will find that their loan capital which will be handed over will be serviced by the water authority; so that the position between the two relative to the outstanding loans will be the same. But on the figures that I have mentioned, is seems to me that the Watford Corporation will gain a clear million pounds, or perhaps very much more. That is over and above what would be the case if, as a result of this Bill, their water undertaking was taken from them and handed to the water authority covering the Watford area. As I see it that sum, that million pounds, will be used by the corporation either in relief of rates or for some capital project for the benefit of Watford's ratepayers. When eventually the Colne Valley Water Company is bought by the nation or by a water authority under a compulsory purchase order, the local authorities which have had their undertakings taken from them without compensation under the provisions of this Bill will find themselves paying at least the million pounds that I have mentioned for the property.

VISCOUNT AMORY

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, there is one point about which I am not quite clear. He has said twice, I think, "without compensation", but if I understood him aright the authority which has sold their undertaking to the water company would have received compensation for the sale of it, and therefore the ratepayers would have received that compensation.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, has the noble Viscount read the Bill in such a way that he thinks that the water authorities will be paying compensation to the local authorities for their undertakings taken over? If he has, I must admit that I have missed that point. I thought that when publicly-owned undertakings were taken over in this way compensation was not payable, but I should like to hear the noble Baroness—and I hope that she will answer her noble friend—when she comes to reply on this point.

VISCOUNT AMORY

My Lords, may I point out that the noble Lord has got it wrong? I thought he was referring to the sales of water undertakings by a local authority to a water company. In that case, where they have sold the undertaking, they have received compensation for that sale; and therefore the ratepayers are that much better off. Indeed, I think the noble Lord said it.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. That is exactly the point that I was making: that the authorities which sell their undertaking to companies will in fact gain, and I think that in the case of Watford, for example, they will gain a million pounds. But what happens when, say, the Taf Fechan Water Company is taken over by the water authority in the Wales area? No compensation will be paid, and there will be that much loss to the authorities in that area. I am glad the noble Viscount nods assent to what I am now say- ing as an understandable statement of the position.

VISCOUNT AMORY

My Lords, I think my mistake was that I thought the noble Lord was referring to a subsequent takeover by the nation of the assets that the water company had acquired, as to which he said the ratepayers would then be penalised. The point I was making was that in that case I think the ratepayers would have benefited from the initial sale to the water company. But I realise now that he is referring not to the sale but to the takeover without compensation.

LORD CHAMPION

Yes, my Lords, up to that point, but eventually when the Colne Valley water undertaking, for example, is purchased by the nation in some way, it will have to be paid for partly by the very ratepayers whose undertakings have been taken from them, under this Bill, to the water authorities; and this is the unfairness that I am trying to point out to the House and to the Government. The whole system is quite unfair, in that it has enabled some water authorities who have been a little smart, perhaps, to sell their undertakings to a company and profit considerably thereby. This amount will have to be paid eventually, when there is a takeover of these companies, either by the ratepayers in the area or by the water users or by the taxpayers. I hope that the position is now reasonably clear on the complaint that I am making about the Government action in permitting these sales to take place, since it was known what the Government were going to do. I mentioned at the outset that I had dated this Amendment to operate from the time of the gracious Speech of last year. In fact, of course, it was known long before then what the Government were going to do. Consultation papers were issued and they made it fairly clear.

My Lords, the position here is much the same for the Epsom Corporation. They are going to sell their undertaking to the Sutton and District Water Company by the provisions of the Sutton District Water Order 1973. The consideration for that transfer is £255,000, and I gather that one of the objections to be made will be related to the fact that the undertaking is considered to be worth considerably more than £255,000. As in the case of Watford, there will be a gain to the local ratepayers at the expense of other ratepayers; or, depending on how eventually the company is taken over, by the taxpayers generally. I understand that Tunbridge Wells and Chesham Urban Council are in the same position as Watford and Epsom. If these sales are permitted, as is clearly the intention of the Government, a comparable payment ought to be made to those local authorities whose water undertakings are being confiscated under the provisions of this Bill. There should be equality of treatment between all local authorities who are selling their undertakings or having them taken over by the nation.

Clearly we ought to do something about this. At least we ought to place the ratepayers in the rest of the area which includes—for example Watord and Epsom—in a position of equality of treatment. That is all I am asking for. I am not going to make a threat of confiscation by a future Labour Government of the water companies acquired as a result of enterprise on the part of the local authorities I have mentioned. But I think that this enterprise is to some extent pretty smart practice. Any future Government carrying out in its entirety this Government's understandable original intention, to place in public hands, the control of water, from the collection to the sea, ought to take steps to see that any water charges imposed on, say, consumers at Watford take into consideration the fact that they have profited by the sale of their water undertaking; they have benefitted, while other authorities will have had their undertakings confiscated under the provisions of this Bill.

Another fact which must be considered by a future Government taking over the water companies, if these sales go through, is that, because of the desire to beat the deadline of the takeover by the water authorities, these local authority water assets may well be being sold at a knockdown price, because those concerned are determined to get out before the provisions in the Bill become operative. I think that in permitting this to happen the Government are acting unfairly to those authorities who are not in a position to sell and who are doing the right thing; namely, seeing their water undertakings being handed over to the nation. I beg to move.

3.25 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I think it would be helpful if I began by setting the background on the Government's proposals in this Bill for statutory water companies, because the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has asserted that some local authorities are being very smart and getting away with the selling of their water undertakings to water companies; and that therefore this creates a great deal of unfairness as between one authority and another. The first point I should like to make is that the transfer of a statutory water undertaking requires the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, under Section 9 of the 1945 Water Act. In this connection an applicant for an Order must submit a draft Order to the Secretary of State and publish the notice of the application in the London Gazette and in local newspapers in the area affected by the application. Then there is an objection period of twenty-eight days. If within that time an objection is received from any local authority in the affected area, or from any other person appearing to the Secretary of State to be affected by the application, the Secretary of State must hold a public inquiry. I have set this out so that it may be seen that in any of these cases there are the statutory procedures to be gone through.

When the time came for the consideration of this piece of legislation an explanatory memorandum of the Government's proposals for the reorganisation was published in December, 1971. It said: It is thought unlikely that any circumstances will arise to justify further regroupings in advance of 1st April 1974— That is, of course, regrouping of local authorities with statutory water com-panies— but the Secretary of State is prepared to consider on their merits proposals for voluntary regroupings submitted by statutory water companies. This attitude was further clarified in a letter to the Water Companies Association on March 22, 1972, which said that proposals would be considered, provided that they were technically sound and could be agreed on in sufficient time for the overall effect of such amalgamation to be viewed against the background of the Bill. On November 15, 1972, the Water Companies Association was told, first, that in view of the announcement of legislation for the reorganisation of the water industry the Secretary of State had decided that it would not be appropriate for him to entertain further applications for Orders—that is, for amalgamation between local authorities and statutory water companies—where the necessary formalities (that is the passing of a formal resolution to apply for the Order) had not been completed by that date, November 15, 1972.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, that is the date I was after.

BARONESS YOUNG

The Secretary of State said he would consider cases that had met that date-line; but, as I have already outlined in the procedure, they would be considered on their merits and be subjected to a technical examination.

My Lords, I have explained this background in some detail because I wish to make clear that the Government's attitude is not doctrinaire. We have tried to indicate that we do not think there should be a significant change in the balance between statutory water companies and the public sector. On the other hand, there are certain cases where there may well be a strong case on technical grounds for amalgamating two undertakings to produce a single management unit. There are, for example, some very small local authority undertakings which, for one reason or another, have been passed over in the general process of regrouping which has been taking place almost continuously since 1945 and have just remained as a small local authority undertaking in an area served exclusively by a water company.

What is in the Bill has been designed to make a sensible and practical working relationship between the Regional Water Authorities and the statutory water companies, and it is felt that in cases such as I have outlined it would be more sensible for the local authority undertaking to be amalgamated with the statutory water company. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, mentioned two particular cases and he will, I hope, understand if I do not comment further on them at this stage because in both cases either there has just been a public inquiry or there is about to be one, and in the circumstances I am sure the House will understand that it would not be right for me to comment further. But if I may give one example, there is an amalgamation which came into effect on April 1, 1973, between the Wortley Urban District Council and a large local authority undertaking (Sheffield County Borough), and another involving the transfer of a small local authority undertaking (Chesham Urban District Council) to the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company. The Chesham Urban District Council supplies only 1.1 million gallons a day, as against 33.1 million gallons a day for the water company, and it is completely surrounded by the company. The proposal was advertised in the normal way and there were no objections. It is for this reason that, in the Government's view, there is no case for reopening the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, raised a point early in his speech about the fact that some local authorities might be making an enormous amount of money out of this. The position is that where a water authority take over a water undertaking they will take over the burden of the outstanding loan charges. I hope, therefore, that I have explained to the House the relationship as we see it between the Regional Water Authorities and the statutory water companies and why we consider that in these circumstances it is right that some local authority water undertakings should be merged with the statutory water companies. It is a practical reason, a way of coming to a sensible arrangement in these particular areas, and we consider that this is a pragmatic and sensible approach to this problem. It is for that reason that I am unable to accept the Amendment.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, the noble Baroness has made as good a case as possible for a wholly indefensible position. The attitude of the Government in this matter is, in my opinion, absolutely indefensible. We were told by the noble Baroness that on the instructions of the Secretary of State no further orders were to be made after November 15, 1972. I can only think that by that time somehow it had become borne in on the Secretary of State that this whole procedure was quite unfair. The noble Baroness advised the House of the machinery, and it was right that she should do—the machinery of the actual making of the draft, the holding of the inquiry and so on—but the noble Baroness has not satisfied me that the Government have really considered whether it is fair or not to continue with this matter. My Lords, if I talked here for an hour I should merely be saying that the Government in my opinion are quite wrong to go on in the way they have,

Clause 40 [Commencement]:

3.43 p.m.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 16: Page 45, line 25, after ("1930") insert (",Part VI of the Local Government Act 1948,").

and I would ask noble Lords to express their feelings by walking through the Lobby with me in a vote of protest against the Government's wholly indefensible position.

3.35 p.m.

On Question whether the said Amendment (No. 15) be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 67.

CONTENTS
Archibald, L. Gaitskell, B. Sainsbury, L.
Brockway, L. Gardiner, L. St. Davids, V.
Buckinghamshire, E. Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.] Samuel, V.
Burntwood, L. Geddes of Epsom, L. Shinwell, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. George-Brown, L. Slater, L.
Champion, L. Hale, L. Snow, L.
Chorley, L. Henderson, L. Stocks, B.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Hoy, L. Strabolgi, L.
Crook, L. Jacques, L. Summerskill, B.
Davies of Leek, L. Janner, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Diamond, L. Kennet, L. White, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Leatherland, L. Williamson, L.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.] Wise, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L. McLeavy, L.
Fiske, L. Pargiter, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Gowrie, E. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Airedale, L. Greenway, L. Oakshott, L.
Amory, V. Grenfell, L. Onslow, E.
Atholl, D. Grimston of Westbury, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Balfour, E. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. {L. Chancellor.) Porritt, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Redcliffe-Maud, L.
Byers, L. Hawke, L. Rennell, L.
Carrington, L. Hill of Luton, L. St. Helens, L.
Cawley, L. Hylton-Foster, B. St. Just, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Ironside, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Conesford, L. Lauderdale, E. Sandford, L.
Courtown, E. Limerick, E. Sempill, Ly.
Cowley, E. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. Spencer, E.
Craigavon, V. Long, V. Strathcarron, L.
Daventry, V. Lothian, M. Strathclyde, L.
de Clifford, L. Loudoun, C. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Derwent, L. Luke, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Milverton, L. Strathspey, L.
Eccles, V. Monck, V. Tenby, V.
Effingham, E. Monckton of Brenchley, V. Tweedsmuir, L.
Elles, B. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Erskine of Rerrick, L. Northchurch, B. Young, B.
Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is necessary to empower water authorities to pay financial loss allowance and travelling and subsistence allowances to their members in the interim period up to April 1, 1974, when they will be making preparations for the transfer of their functions. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17A.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 31, leave out ("(6) (7) and (8)") and insert ("and (6) to (11), except subsections (9) and (11 so far as relating to section 12 of the Water Act 1945").—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17A.

Amendment moved— Page 45, leave out line 32.—(Baroness Young.)

On Question Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 18: Page 45, line 39, leave out ("(1) to (3)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring subsections (4) and (5) of Schedule 2—the general provisions about recreation—into operation on April 1, 1974, and not, as the clause is at present drafted, on Royal Assent.

On Question Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Administration, finance, etc., of Water authorities and the National Water Council]:

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 19 which does no more than correct a printing error.

Amendment moved— Page 59, line 17, leave out ("fully") and insert ("duly").—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords Amendments 20 and 21 are similar in purpose. They introduce consistency into the Bill by treating "the authority" in the plural and not in the singular. With the leave of the House I will move them together.

Amendments moved—

Page 59, line 37, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").

Page 60, line 7, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Sandford.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 22: Page 62, line 10, after ("towards") insert ("research or related activities and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment—which is to paragraph 31(2) of Schedule 3—is to enable revenue raised in a local land drainage district to be spent on research and other related activities as well as on those items at present listed in the paragraph. Clause 25(10) of the Bill requires a water authority to make arrangements for the carrying out of research and related activities but there is no corresponding power to make a contribution towards the cost of research out of land drainage revenue. This Amendment makes this possible. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

BARONESS YOUNG

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 and to point out at the same time that there is a printing error on the Marshalled List. The words "and the" in the substituted section 13(2) should read "or a".

Amendment moved— After Schedule 3 insert the following new Schedule

Supply of water in bulk by agreement or compulsorily