Lords Sitting of 14 June 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

STEEL SUPPLIES
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they expect a shortage of British steel in view of the expanding needs of United Kingdom industry.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, there is at present a shortage both here and abroad of certain types of steel. The rapid growth in home demand this year has coincided with tile cyclical upturn in world demand for steel. The Corporation has also experienced some severe labour and production troubles. Though supplies are currently under pressure, the Government believe that the industry is doing its utmost to overcome these difficulties and to meet the requirements of its customers. The Department of Trade and Industry is dealing sympathetically with requests to suspend import tariffs on steel products which are in short supply domestically. However, the ten-year development strategy which the Government settled with the British Steel Corporation last December is designed to enable the Corporation to meet the rising demands of British industry in both quantity and quality, and a number of steel companies in the private sector have also announced development schemes.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and constructive reply. It is clear from his reply that the Government are aware that British industry is already being held back by a very long date for delivery of steel, and it is disappointing that this should be so at a time when our potential and our sales and our order books are all turning up. One realises fully that of course this is partly
814
due to the serious strike at Scunthorpe, but I hope the Government will take every possible measure at their disposal to overcome this shortage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I said, the steel industry itself is doing all it can to solve these problems, including the quota-ing of supplies by the British Steel Corporation to their customers in order to make certain that purchases are not made for purely stocking or speculative purposes.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we are always from now on going to be fobbed off, whenever we in this country have either shortages or high prices, with the answer that this is due to world shortage or to world high prices?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have not said that this shortage was due only to world shortages. But it is a fact that steel is in short supply and it is difficult for users here to obtain their supplies from abroad, even at a much higher price. What I said was that there has been delay in completing such projects because of production and labour difficulties.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, in view of what has been said, will the noble Lord tell us why the Government are cutting back the steel industry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government certainly are not cutting back the steel industry. There is a very big development programme which is going to cost £3,000 million over the next ten years. What they are doing is to make the steel industry more efficient in order to compete better in the world and give the best possible service at home.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, would not the noble Minister agree that every time we have a boom in England we have a steel shortage and we have to import steel, which imperils the balance of payments as we saw yesterday after those very encouraging speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and others? Would he not also agree that this steel shortage shows the utmost short-sightedness of the Government last year when they tried to cut the expansion scheme to 28 million tons and were only with difficulty persuaded to make it 42 million tons?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as the question of importing steel is concerned, the fact is of course that steel in this country is cheaper than it is abroad. Therefore there is a tendency for foreigners to want to buy steel here at the cheaper prices that persist, and that is an additional factor which leads to shortages here. As to the review of steel that took place, there was no question of the Government's cutting back from 42 million tons. At the present time steel is running a production of 27 million tons and the forecast output in the ten-year programme is something between 36 million and 38 million tons.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that much of the scrap supply is now going abroad; and will the Government look at this matter to see whether there are any fiscal measures they can take to encourage scrap to remain and to be used in this country, in view of the developing black market there is for new steel?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we are now members of the European Economic Community and have to comply with its Rules, but I shall look at the problem to see whether anything can be done in this field.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is bad economics to dispense with thousands of people who have been engaged in the steel industry producing steel for the nation and for the benefit of industrial development, and to cut back production, instead of increas'ing it, when more development ought to be taking place?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it does not follow that, because labour requirements are reduced, the rate of production is being cut. It is well known that the purpose of the reduction in labour requirements is to make the industry more efficient, and at the same time to produce more. I would say to the noble Lord only that the present position is not due to closures or cutting down. I have here a list of the closures and there has been only one closure this year: that of Cookley Rolling Mills.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that these people who
816
have been engaged in the industry are practical men, and having spent their lives inside the industry know much about it, just as the management knows about the industry? This is what the Government and some of the "higher-ups" inside the industry never take into consideration, and then they are faced with labour problems.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may say so I think the noble Lord is going a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I have made clear the position as to the future and to the course that we shall take on supplies. We are entirely sympathetic with the fact that the development will require economies in the use of labour and that some men will be redundant. The Government are taking every possible measure, in conjunction with the industry, to meet this problem.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, are we to understand that the Rules of the Common Market now inhibit the Government from prohibiting the export of steel scrap to the Common Market itself, in line with the orders that used to be issued to this effect?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I really should require notice of that Question, because again it does not arise immediately out of the Question on the Order Paper. If I remember correctly, this is so or it will be so; I am not quite certain whether it is so at the moment or whether it will be so.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, in that case could not the Government introduce regulations, as has been done frequently in the past, prohibiting the export of scrap at this time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have already said that I will look at this.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the problem with regard to the steel industry has always been that they have tried to work on too fine a margin of spare capacity, as compared with America, which always leaves herself sufficient spare capacity to take up a suddenly expanding market.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that is entirely true. The

817
present situation is due in some considerable part to the fact that steel stocks were run down very substantially and then they had to be built up again.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, the Minister stated that he has a list of steelworks that are to be closed. Can he tell us whether the Shotton steelworks in North Wales is included in that list?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that again is wide of the Question on the Order Paper and I think I should refer the noble Lord to the White Paper on Steel, published in February last.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, if my noble friend gives the time taken before capital expenditure is made and before new steel comes on stream, will it not be revealed that our present shortage arises, because first years ago, the previous Government did not make adequate plans for steel-making?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was careful not to make any suggestions of that sort here; but of course it is a fact that steel developments take three to five years and noble Lords can draw their won conclusions.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, if the Minister is going to answer in the manner in which he has done to his noble friend, perhaps it would be as well for him to take a look—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD SLATER: Then, my Lords, will the Minister take a look at and go over the records, back to 1950 and 1951, after the Labour Government was in power, to see what really happened when the Tory Government came into power?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite willing to do that, but it does not arise out of the Question.

HEAVY ROAD VEHICLES AND PORT INSPECTIONS
3.18 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many heavy commercial vehicles entering this country since August 1,
818
1972, have been inspected at ports of entry, how many were found overloaded or contravening other regulations either at ports of entry or subsequently, and where contraventions were found after entry, how many prosecutions were initiated, and of these prosecutions how many have been brought into court.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in the period August 1, 1972, to May 31 this year, approximately 6,000 foreign vehicles have been examined under the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act, 1972, by D.O.E. examiners and Weights and Measures officials. 1,200 were found to be over-weight and of these 800 were forced to off-load immediately; 17 were mechanically defective; 58 had no permit or short-term operator's licence and 79 contravened the hours and records regulations. Two drivers ignored prohibitions issued to them, were arrested, prosecuted and fined. Separate figures for vehicles prohibited at inland checks are not available.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he has any indication as to whether the enormous number of vehicles which have been found to be overloaded and otherwise in poor condition come from the same companies, or do they come from different companies?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to the observation made by my noble friend that it is an enormous number, I would assure him that it has been reduced from 80 per cent. of the foreign vehicles entering found to be faulty a year ago, to something now between 10 and 20 per cent. That, I think, will give comfort to all noble Lords in this House. As to the question of whether they are coming from the same companies, I can say that basically we are taking note of that point. There was one company which had six or seven particularly had offences of overloading, and we complained to the French Government. The French Government have now said that no more permits will be issued allowing that company's vehicles to come to this country.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us, if 6,000 is the

819
number of vehicles that have come in, and that all the vehicles that have come in have been examined by examiners at the port?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, no. Of the number of heavy vehicles entering this country, about 11,000 enter every month: of these, half are British and of the remaining half, half are trailers to be attached to British lorries, and therefore they become British. So of the total of foreign vehicles coming in, we examine about one in five.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, would the noble Lord make it clear that that figure of between 15 and 20 per cent. non-compliance is not at all acceptable?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I said that we have reduced the number contravening our regulations from 80 per cent. to between 10 and 20 per cent. We are not happy with that figure. In this country, of our own vehicles we have something like 2 to 4 per cent. non-compliance, and it is our intention to reduce the figure for foreign vehicles to this percentage.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, does the fact that such a small proportion of the vehicles coming in are being examined result from the fact that we have an insufficiency of examiners at the port?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, not for the first time, has put his finger on an important point. Our men working at the ports have been fully stretched. By September we shall have 50 more inspectors/examiners available to the D.O.E.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that even that will not be satisfactory if, out of 6,000 vehicles inspected 1,200 were found to be overloaded? Would not the fact that this result is found on a spot check appear to show that there must be a very large number of vehicles coming into this country at the moment unchecked and grossly overladen?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. I think the point is that
820
we have reduced the number contraveening our regulations from 80 to between 20 and 20 per cent. That indicates that these spot checks are working; and, in any case, one in five is rather more than a spot check. We know what to look for and the firms likely to be at fault. The situation is improving all the time. There is no need to worry. The Act has not yet been in force for one year and the improvement is markedly to the good.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may not be very worried, but many people who operate on the motorways and on the smaller country roads around Dover are greatly worried, particularly bearing in mind the very tragic accident last week.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is overstepping his brief in that statement. There is no indication that that accident had anything to do with an overweight vehicle, and it is very wrong of the noble Lord to indicate that. We do not find that vehicles are coming in overweight in increasing numbers. We are reducing them, and we think that the number of inspectors will now be sufficient. There is no evidence that the accident to which the noble Lord referred had anything to do with overloading, which is what the law is about.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say quite truthfully that this exhibition of leniency has anything to do with our association with the Common Market?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there is no question of leniency. We prohibit any overweight vehicle which does not unload on our instructions from entering. Prohibition is a very costly fine to operators abroad. We allow only a tolerance of around 2 cwt., and when one has a maximum limit of 32 tons laden weight that is not a great deal of leniency.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if those figures are not somewhat misleading. Am I right in thinking that the vast majority of lorries that come in—that is, the remaining 75 per cent.—are British. Of the 25 per cent., those that are examined are obviously likely to be faulty—and

821
it is impossible to examine every lorry—therefore the figures mislead to some extent because many need not be examined.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think I made it clear that of the vehicles coming into the country half are foreign—and we examine all vehicles coming in on our spot checks, whether British or foreign. The Question refers to foreign vehicles, and I merely pointed out that, of the half which came in as foreign, half of those were put on to British lorries and therefore from that moment came under the heading of British vehicles. But they are still spot checked.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, could the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has spoken once or twice.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether, if the Government find one firm continually violating our orders, they are in a position to ban that firm's vehicles from coming into this country?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I answered that Question earlier. I pointed out that we had complained to France about one particular French firm and the French had agreed not to issue permits for that firm to come to Britain.
LORD HALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say to what extent lorries are provided with insurance policies which cover injuries to British subjects on the roads, and to what extent those insurance policies are invalidated if lorries do not conform to regulations or are in a defective condition.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, defective condition is certainly one of the things we examine. They must have papers of sorts but whether they must have the exact papers the noble Lord refers to I am not sure: the noble Lord will have to put down another Question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a slightly different question, but covered by the original Question? His replies nearly all concern vehicles overloaded or overweight, but there are other regulations which could be contravened, notably on size. Can the noble Lord say how many cases have been checked at the ports where foreign vehicles that contravened regulations as to length and size have come in?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not aware that any have come in in contravention of our regulations. That is what we are there to examine.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this has been a most spirited debate, and I notice that it is now 26 minutes past three and we have had only two Questions.

NORTH SEA OIL LICENSING REVIEW
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the review of the licensing procedure for oil exploration in the North Sea has been completed, and whether new principles have been established for further licences and when a new round of licensing would be initiated.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the review is not yet complete; its outcome will be reported to Parliament as soon as it is. I can give an assurance that there will not be a further general round of licensing before it is complete.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, and may I remark, in passing, that I am delighted that I did not lose my sparring partner on this Question? May I, however, ask whether, in view of the Norwegian decision to begin licensing again, it would not be better to speed up the process of consultations and reviews?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Well, my Lords, the review is proceeding with all speed. If it is possible to speed it up

823
I am sure it will be further speeded up. The next Question of the noble Lord deals with consultation.

NORTH SEA OIL: TAX CONSULTATIONS
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the consultations (promised in the Budget speech) with the oil companies on preventing tax avoidance on the North Sea profits through offsetting book-keeping losses have been completed, and what the results are.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the consultations have not yet been completed. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement, the issues involved are complex, and the reason for having full consultations with the industry is to ensure that next year's legislation takes full account of the practical problems involved. The Chancellor made it clear, however, that the Exchequer must not suffer as the result of any delay caused by the need to consult, and that the new legislation would therefore apply from the beginning of the current trading year.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer.

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD): PAY DISPUTE
3.29 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice—namely,
Whether they will make a Statement about the progress of negotiations on the Hansard Reporters' pay issue, and if they will give an assurance that the seasonal bonus, as previously paid, is being considered.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, discussions are continuing with the staff association concerned and I am anxious to ensure that every effort is made to
824
bring this matter to a conclusion. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the reporters have informed the House authorities that they will be in normal attendance tomorrow. In the meantime, I believe that it will be more helpful to these discussion if I were to refrain at this stage from making any public statement about the points at issue.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. But, as has been expressed on a previous occasion, he will know the value which the House places upon the services of the whole Hansard team, and he will know, therefore, how great is our interest in the progress of these negotiations. Of course. I accept that the Floor of the House is not the appropriate place to conduct pay negotiations, but I would press the point towards the end of my Question; since a seasonal bonus was paid in 1971, as the noble Earl knows, in lieu of the settlement of a satisfactory pay structure, and a similar bonus was of course paid in an earlier year, can he give an assurance that if this matter goes before the Pay Board tomorrow, as I understand it may well do. Her Majesty's Government's view expressed to that Board will be that such a bonus is payable again for 1972?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House authorities and staff association concerned are going to consult Pay Board officials tomorrow about the implications of the Pay Code on the matters which are the subject of discussion. I am sure that any solution, or any claim, falling within the requirements of counter inflation policy will be most carefully considered.
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and of course I accept what he says.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord must not keep on calling me the noble Earl.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was assuming that the noble Lord's promotion carried with it certain advancements. I thank him for the answer he has given. But may I ask him again, when this matter goes before the Board will it be the Government's expressed view that this bonus does fall within the scope of the conditions of Phase 2?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is difficult to go into this in detail, as the noble Lord himself rightly said in his first supplementary question. There is a great deal of case law, of case history about the interpretation of the Pay Code and I think it is only right to leave this matter to the Pay Board.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, could the Minister say whether the Hansard reporters are covered by the Whitley machinery? And, as the noble Lord responsible in this House for the Civil Service, would he not say that the time has now arrived when the Whitley machinery ought to be looked at with the object of introducing a new form of conciliation machinery on behalf of the Civil Service in this country?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it would not be better for this matter to be dropped entirely now, and not discussed publicly? It would be far better, I think, if he would declare that this matter should be dropped entirely, with no more questions asked or answered.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that is right, and that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has caught the feeling of the House on this matter.

QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SELECT COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Privy Seal (L. Windlesham) be appointed in the place of the Earl Jellicoe to the following Committees of the House: House of Lords Offices, Procedure, Privileges and the Committee of Selection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement the recommendation of the Procedure Committee to which the House agreed last Thursday.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:—
Standing Order No. 29
Line 13, at end insert—
"(2) No Lord is to speak more than once to any Unstarred Question except, with the Leave of the House, for the purpose of explaining himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced)."—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATE REBATE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

WATER BILL
3.36 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Establishment and functions of National Water Council]:
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and planning;").
The noble Lord said: Late on Monday night your Lordships debated at some length three Amendments dealing with the central planning of water: they were my Amendment, the Government's Amendment and the Amendment moved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord

827
Sinclair of Cleeve, with various other names attached, which attracted great support. All those Amendments were withdrawn. I got the impression that many noble Lords were disappointed and felt that the National Water Council ought to be involved in central planning. I believe that many of your Lordships detected contradictions in the Government's ideas about such central planning. Evidently the Government have resolved some of those contradictions, if contradictions they were, because I understand that they are going to accept my Amendment No. 26, which is the one before your Lordships now. Amendment 26 bears on the same problems, in that it is trying to give the National Water Council responsibility for promoting the planning functions of regional water authorities. It adds the words "and planning" to the duties which are put upon the National Water Council. It is short and sweet and is less radical than the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. In fact it is the shortest way to ensure that the central planning should be transferred to the National Water Council; indeed, it would involve the National Water Council as deeply as possible in the planning of water resources.
I understand that the Government would have accepted this Amendment if it had been moved in another place. I was tabled but it was not called. That is something that I do not understand. Nevertheless, in accepting it, I understand the Government have certain misgivings with regard to the word "planning". When the noble Lord dealt with the question on Monday he said that he found it too imprecise. And yet noble Lords discussed the planning functions of various bodies at some length the same evening without any apparent confusion or imprecision. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, himself continually used the word and we had no difficulty in understanding him, though some of us at that time had some difficulty in agreeing with him. If, in acepting my Amendment now, the noble Lord can accept that word without restricting it in any way or rendering it meaningless, or weakening the effect of some other aspects of the Bill's provisions, I shall be happy. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I think that we are in some little difficulty about this matter. I have the greatest sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. It does not go so far as the Amendment of Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, but it is in the same direction. My difficulty is that at our last sitting we accepted a Government Amendment which referred to the planning duties of water authorities under Clause 23. As we said at the time, that was, in effect, a restrictive Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: We did not accept it; we asked the Government to withdraw the Amendment on the grounds that it was too restrictive.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is correct and I am at fault here. It was because of the very danger that I was apprehending that we did not, in the event, accept it. If we do not accept Lord Henley's Amendment, then it seems to me that the Government would be in difficulties in carrying out the proposition, as I understood it, put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford: that the Government wish to have time to see how their own proposals work in practice and that if, in experience, they are not satisfied with the results and we have not put specific provisions into the Bill—as proposed, for example, in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve—the Government will be free to reorganise the system without statutory impediment. I wish to be satisfied that that is really so. If, in the clause as it stands unamended, one mentions specifically functions relating to research but not functions relating to planning, then surely the Government might be in some difficulty, even on their own premise, in carrying out the sort of reorganisation which some of us certainly wish to see and which the Government might, in the light of experience, also wish to see. It seems to me that this is what gives the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, its particular importance.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I say that while I am glad to know that the Government take a favourable view of planning being within the scope, or under the authority, of the National Water Council, I feel that there is still

829
great substance in the point that planning and research should go together. While I certainly could not oppose this Amendment in the sense that planning itself should go there, I hope that its acceptance will not be regarded by your Lordships as an admission that research should not ever be so included. I indicated at the end of the debate on Monday evening that we proposed to return at the Report stage to this subject of planning and research being vested in, or under the authority of, the National Water Council.
LORD HENLEY: May I just reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, by saying that it does not seem to me that I am weakening Clause 23 in any way by adding the words "and planning" to Clause 4(5)(b).
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to confirm that this Amendment is acceptable and will not cause any difficulties to the Government. The point I would make is that we are here discussing two rather separate things arising from Lord Henley's Amendment. There is the business of the planning function of the regional water authorities, and the role which the National Water Council have in promoting the planning functions of the regional water authorities. I am quite prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, which would have the effect of adding "planning" after the ward "research", but that is in the context of what I was saying at the earlier stage of the Committee when I mentioned that it would be necessary, or at any rate desirable, to spell out what those functions were and make them more specific. I do not think that that will weaken what the noble Lord is saying. I do not think that it will restrict it, but it will just direct attention to Clause 23, where the kind of planning which is required of the regional water authorities is spelt out in more detail.
Subject to the retabling of my Amendment, which was No. 24, at the next stage, the noble Lord's Amendment is acceptable for the time being. I do not think that the Government are in any great difficulty whether the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, my Amendment is accepted, or neither Amendment is accepted. It is plain for all to see that the regional water authorities will have
830
to undertake planning, and it is clear already, on the face of the Bill, that the kind of planning that they have to do is set out in Clause 23. Therefore we are all right either way; but a debate on the kind of planning they have to do, and the way in which the National Water Council has to do it, has been valuable and useful.
Running parallel with this discussion has been the further discussion which was made possible by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve when he tabled his Amendment concerned with planning at the national level, and which is dealing with much longer-term events than the planning by the regional water authorities. Anxieties were expressed by several noble Lords about the pattern of the national water bodies that are going to be set up in future and which will inherit the work of various bodies such as the Water Pollution Research Laboratory and the Water Resources Board with which we have been familiar in the past. During that debate I gave the undertaking that, in the light of anxieties and comments and queries raised from all sides of the Committee, I would seek to prepare a further Paper, not only setting out what the Government intend to do but giving more weight to the reasons behind those decisions, which perhaps have not been sufficiently clear hitherto. In the light of that debate my suggestion was that we should have a further debate, if necessary, on the Government's proposals for the Water Research Centre, the Central Water Planning Unit, and the other central bodies. I believe that it was the opinion of the Committee, when we adjourned on the last occasion, that this course would now be the most convenient way in which to proceed. To sum up, that is what I propose to do, and in the meanwhile advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY had given Notice of intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) The Council shall establish a national water planning unit for such purposes related to the national use of water as the council may, with the consent of Ministers, specify from time to time, and the council shall make

831
such arrangements in connection with the establishment of this unit as will procure that:—

(a) the work of the unit is guided generally by a steering committee which shall include, together with persons associated with the council and the water authorities, persons appointed by the council after consulting Ministers and persons so appointed after consultation with associations of local authorities and the Greater London Council, and with such bodies as appear to the council to represent the interests of agriculture, industry other than agriculture, and trade unions, or to be concerned in research closely related to the use of water;

(b) provision is also made for the unit to undertake any specific work which Ministers may require from time to time, whether at the council's expense or on a repayment basis;

(c) a report on the work of the unit is published annually, and other reports arising from the work of the unit are published as the steering committee so decides;

(d) employment (which may be permanent or by secondment) in connection with the work of the unit is offered by the council in accordance with arrangements specified by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Minister for the Civil Service to such of the persons engaged at the time of the passing of this Act in the work of the Water Resources Board as may be so specified.")

The noble Lord said: I am still not clear, and far from happy, about the relationships between the various central bodies, the National Water Council, the Central Water Planning Unit, the Steering Committee, the Water Research Council, and the Department of the Environment. I was proposing to deploy arguments on assumptions that may not be valid. I now understand that the Government propose to circulate Papers that may remove some of those fears, or may not. However, I must reserve my position at a later stage, and I do not move the Amendment standing in my name.
On Question, whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he will ensure that we have the Paper, which we shall deeply appreciate, in good time, so that we have some opportunity of consulting before we reach the Report stage?
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly. In fact, I can say that I have one in draft already.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Arrangements for discharge of functions of water authorities]:
3.50 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 44, after ("authority") insert ("and this general provision shall permit the appointment of an executive committee consisting of the chairman or the deputy chairman of the authority, and such other members of the authority as the authority may appoint including the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Land Drainage Committee; any such executive committee shall be charged with such duties as the authority may define, including the consideration in detail of recommendations from sub-committees and the formulation of proposals arising therefrom for the consideration of the authority; and any such executive committee shall be served by the principal officer of the authority.")
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is a comparatively simple Amendment. It is permissive and not mandatory. So far as I can see, it raises questions of procedure and administration rather than major questions of principle. Nevertheless, it is not unimportant and the reasons for putting it down are simply these. In the early days particularly, these new water authorities will have a great many problems which involve quite important questions of policy or administration. The Bill, as it stands, certainly gives these authorities permission to appoint committees or sub-committees as may be required. But the whole tenor of the paragraphs dealing with that aspect suggest that those committees ought to deal with particular subjects or problems. In the result, if there are many such committees, they will report direct to the full authority, and it does not require much imagination to appreciate that in a very short time the machinery will become hopelessly clogged unless some device such as an executive committee is adopted.
It may be said that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an executive committee being appointed, and I think that is true. On the other hand, in practice, if there is no recognition of the possible existence of an executive committee, it is conceivable, if not indeed highly probable, that many of the committees or sub-committees reporting from time to time to the authority will require that their report should go direct to the full authority, which, I am afraid, would

833
simply not be practicable, because of the number of such committees and the number of recommendations from them which would arise. Those are the reasons why I am suggesting that a permissive power to appoint an executive committee should be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): As this is the first time that I have taken part in this Committee stage, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her very kind remarks. As we always listen with such respect to what she says, the compliment is the greater; and many other noble Lords have also made such kind remarks. Any inadequacies on my part will be entirely due to myself and not to the Water Bill or to the very considerable amount of excellent advice that I have been given.
When considering my reply to my noble friend Lord Sinclair, whose experience in these matters is so great, I re-read what he said on second Reading when he made a similar point. I entirely take his point that it could well appear that, with the number of committees under a regional water authority, there could be a lack of central direction and co-ordination. I hope, however, that I can reassure him on this point—and I say that for two reasons. First, as he himself has said, under Clause 6 it is within the powers of a regional water authority to establish such a committee, and I think, without in any way anticipating how such authorities will act, that they will attract the kind of people who will see the necessity for this kind of committee. However, the Government accept that it is desirable to provide guidance about the management structure, and last year they set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Sir George Ogden, the Town Clerk of Manchester, to prepare such guidance. The Secretary of State has now received the report of this committee and it will be published shortly. I cannot anticipate the full report, but it can be said that the committee are very well aware of the kind of problems to which my noble friend Lord Sinclair
834
has drawn attention. Their recommendations include the establishment of a Policy and Resources Committee as the central committee of the authority, under the chairmanship of the chairman of the authority. The Secretary of State will be commending these recommendations of the Ogden Committee to the water authorities as soon as they are set up. I hope that with those two reassurances my noble friend Lord Sinclair will feel that he has made his point and is able to withdraw his amendment.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. If it is understood—as I imagine it will be understood—that for practical purposes the Policy and Resources Committee would function as an executive committee, and if that is explained by the Secretary of State to the National Water Council which will give guidance to the water authorities on such matters, I imagine with the approval of the Secretary of State, then I shall be very happy indeed to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: Certainly. My understanding is that such a Policy and Resources Committee would, in fact, be an executive committee in the sense described by my noble friend Lord Sinclair.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.57 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 1, at end insert:
("(c) by any local authority;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 46. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has drawn attention to the fact that Clause 6 deals with arrangements for the discharge of functions of water authorities. Subsection (1) enables a water authority to
" … arrange for the discharge of any of their functions

(a) by a committee, a sub-committee or an officer of the authority; or

(b) by any other water authority".

It seems to me rather odd that the Bill does not also provide for regional water authorities to enter into arrangements with local authorities in their areas where

835
it may be advantageous to do so; that is, with district councils, county councils, London boroughs and the Greater London Council.
In the case of sewerage functions which are dealt with in Clause 15, local authorities are required to carry out certain functions for a water authority, and they have no discretion at all in the matter. Subsection (5) of Clause 15 reads:
"If within a period of two months beginning with the date on which any such draft was sent by a water authority to a relevant authority, the two authorities have not entered into the arrangements, the water authority shall, within seven days of the end of that period, notify the Secretary of State of that fact and the Secretary of State shall settle the terms of the arrangements which shall be binding on both authorities."
As I see it, there could be distinct advantage in securing the possibility of co-operation in regard to water, except that the arrangement should be by agreement and not obligatory. In this respect, the really odd thing about the Bill is that Clause 10 permits of just such arrangements in regard to the supply of goods and some services.
Clause 11 again places a local authority in a position in which it may be required to enter into an agreement under Section 1(1) of the 1970 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act with the water authority for a period of five years to provide support services. But as I understand the position, it is the provision of support services only, and there are very strong reasons why there should be provision to enable water authority functions themselves to be carried out by local authorities on agreed terms if both parties are so minded and as long as it suits them both. In support, I would draw attention to the position of local authorities as open space authorities—a capacity in which, because of their detailed knowledge of their own areas and of the people who live in them, and indeed of the people who visit them, they are surely placed in a better position than the large and often far-removed regional water authority, who exercise water, recreation and amenity functions. If we take the monitoring of the water in the Thames tidal estuary. the Greater London Council possesses well-equipped laboratories and has long done the job. Incidentally. I rather think they will
836
continue to do this monitoring, come what may. But is it not sensible to anticipate that the G.L.C. would extend the service to cover whatever needs the water authority may have for scientific monitoring of the river? Clearly it is rather wasteful if two bodies are undertaking the same function.
There are other functions which could be undertaken on an agency basis, all with economy and in most cases with. I venture to suggest, greater efficiency and satisfaction. I think perhaps the one or two instances I have given will in themselves be self-evident as to the point I am making. The Amendment does not seek to introduce compulsory delegation, or anything like that, but only permissive powers; and I trust that the Amendment will be acceptable. May I say that it is submitted as a constructive and helpful Amendment, and at the moment I find it very difficult to anticipate that any valid objection can possibly be made to it. Since this is the first time I myself face the noble Baroness opposite on this Bill, may I say that I very much hope that she will be able to accede to my plea and say that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
BARONESSS YOUNG: I should like to begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that I accept the spirit in which he has moved this Amendment. When I in fact came to consider my reply to it, it seemed to me that it was essential to go back to the basic principle of the Bill, which is the proposal to establish ten regional water authorities which are to be multi-purpose and will have control over all the functions set out in Part II of the Bill. I have listened to many speeches, both at Second Reading and on the first day of Committee, which set out in detail these functions of water supply, sewerage, sewage disposal, water conservation, land drainage, fisheries and pollution. The point was made over and over again of the necessity, in view of the great difficulties facing us over our whole water situation, of having a decision and establishing powerful multipurpose authorities which could deal with them. So that when one looks at the Amendment before us—which for many of your Lordships has, I am sure, a great many temptations—I think one must recognise that what is being asked for is

837
a two-tier system under the regional water authorities. This, of course, becomes particularly attractive on the two parts which have been traditionally local authority services, the first being public water supply and the second being sewage disposal.
If I may turn to the question of public water supply first—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, mentioned this in some connection, as well as some of his other services—it will be known that since 1945 there has been a gradual change in the provision of public water supply from direct local government control to water boards, and there is very considerable evidence that, even had this Bill not been put forward in the particular form that it is in, there would have had to be even larger boards than exist already to meet the kind of situation that we face to-day. There has been severe criticism from the Central Advisory Water Committee on various aspects of this, but probably the most compelling reason for this Bill was the need to establish an adequate system of sewage disposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, so far as the sewerage system itself is concerned, this is in fact delegated under Clause 15 to district and London borough councils, who will be able to continue to maintain and operate their own local sewerage systems. But over the whole range of other matters the Government still feel that it is essential to establish this service under the regional water authorities.
Again, there have been very severe criticisms of the present situation, in which there are 5,000 separate sewage treatment works operated by some 1,300 local authorities; and even though I know that this number of authorities will be considerably reduced from April, 1974, the fact remains that there will still be some 400 of them. We have moved into a world in which the whole of the treatment, maintenance and operation of sewage works has become a highly skilled and exceedingly expensive operation. When one comes to consider this, and whether or not it could be conducted by local authorities on an agency basis, or something like that, I think we have to face the difficult fact that it is an expensive operation and that what one authority would have to pay for would frequently not be of benefit only to its
838
own electors but to those of another authority; and I myself have been in local government long enough to know what a very difficult procedure this is to carry out and to persuade people to adopt.
The noble Lord mentioned other possible functions which might come under this, but I think they are all open to the same kind of objection; that we should be establishing a two-tier system. In saying this I should like to make it quite clear that I am not in any sense criticising local authorities or local government for what they have done. This discussion gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the authorities responsible for all these services and, of course, to the many people who have served in a voluntary capacity on their committees. But it is simply a fact of the complications of our industrial society that we must devise new organisations to meet present trends.
Perhaps I may conclude where I started. I have explained as clearly as I can the reasons that have led the Government to the conclusion they have reached; that is, the establishment of the regional water authorities. I believe that local authorities have been given a say in their work by now having a majority of the members of the regional water authorities. It will be very well known to all Members of your Lordships' Committee in public life that we can never please everybody, and I am given to understand that there were many other organisations which would have liked a much greater representation on the regional water authorities than they have, and which would have wished that the proportions were different. But we have in fact gone ahead and given local authorities the majority of the representatives there, and I hope they will regard this as a recognition of their work and of their knowledge in this field. For the reasons I have set out, I think it would be a mistake to go against the principle and introduce a two-tier scheme, because one has to see this whole organisation against the very serious national need in the provision and supply of water.
4.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I thank the noble Baroness for the charming way in which she has refused to accept this Amendment; such a task

839
could not have been more charmingly undertaken. Having regard to her local government experience, however, I cannot help feeling that it could not have been a very agreeable task for the noble Baroness. I do not propose to take up all the points she made, but may I say that if anybody imagines that local government will be forever satisfied that they have been given a majority of members of regional water authorities with an appointed chairman I am certain that the years will bring evidence that such optimism is quite unfounded.
I really cannot understand why the Government—or is it the Department of the Environment?—are so inflexible on such a simple matter as this. There is here no request for power. There is no request for compulsory delegation. This Amendment seeks only to ensure that there may be an arrangement for the discharge of any of the functions, as between a regional water authority and a local authority, if it suits them both. To talk of that as setting up a two-tier system of administration does not make sense to me. The regional water authority will be under no compulsion at all. When I was moving the Amendment I refrained from giving many examples, but let me give one other to indicate how the Greater London Council could be of the greatest possible assistance. A very considerable amount of timber and other flotsam disfigures the River Thames and creates a considerable problem for small craft using the river. The Greater London Council would like to see this nuisance removed, bust has no power to take action. If the water authority could agree arangements by which the Greater London Council could take over the function of clearing the river of floating debris the job would be done much more quickly and probably more cheaply; and the regional water authority would be relieved of a responsibility which surely it cannot wish to have. May I ask whether the noble Baroness will have another look at this point and ask her right honourable friend also to do so. If she does not, I think that I may well have to come back to it on Report stage. If the Department is prepared to examine the matter, may I suggest, since the Greater London Council is probably the largest authority that would be con-
840
cerned, that the Department has further discussions with the G.L.C., as a result of which it might be able to come up with an Amendment that meets the point. I ask whether the noble Baroness is prepared to give that undertaking.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before my noble friend Lady Young is persuaded by the persuasive terms of Lord Garnsworthy's intervention to give such an undertaking, I should like to say a word in support of the line she has taken. It would be a mistake to give local authorities a status such as to lead one to expect that there could be schemes of delegation. The next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, which I imagine goes with the one that he has just moved, would give local authorities a distinct status which would oblige the R.W.A.s to make such delegation schemes to them unless the contrary is determined by the Secretary of State. That would run completely contrary to the whole concept of the Bill, which is to form multipurpose regional water authorities over a big enough area to be completely comprehensive.
The sewerage function is just as important in this context as the water supply function. At present, the sewerage function is carried out by individual local authorities. As my noble friend rightly said, expenditure by one local authority does not usually benefit that local authority. It improves the condition of the effluent which that local authority is putting into the river but the beneficiaries are the authorities lower down the river. We are all familiar with the continuous conflicts, involving especially the biggest authorities, about the very large sums, running into millions of pounds, which are required to be spent to improve their effluent. That is one of the main reasons why there has not been faster progress in cleaning up the effluent from many big towns in this country, especially in the Midlands and the North. Therefore it is absolutely basic to the kind of progress that we want towards making our rivers cleaner, for amenity and for water re-use purposes, that the sewerage authority of the future, the regional authority, should extend over a big enough area; so that when the new sewage works are constructed at very great cost—and they will have to be in large numbers all over the country—the

841
cost should be borne by the whole region and not by just one local authority. Therefore it would be a complete mistake, and completely in conflict with the whole philosophy of this Bill, if we gave local authorities any status whatsoever to expect that there could be schemes of delegation of this kind. I hope that my noble friend will say firmly, and I am sure very charmingly, that this is simply not on.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, talked about my persuasive powers. May I say that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not be persuaded by the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy. This matter deserves very close examination. There is no thought of taking over major functions, or any functions. The sole object of my Amendment is to allow local authorities, if it is agreeable to the regional water authority and to themselves, to undertake such functions as may be suitable to both of them. I do not think that there is the slightest possibility of dangers arising such as have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I hope that the noble Baroness will look at this matter again, despite what the noble Lord has said.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, replies, may I put in one word? I think the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is in such terms that it is fairly easy for the Government to reject it on the general ground that if you put an Amendment like this into the Bill it could be used to make the local authority members of regional water authorities who, we are delighted to hear, are going to be in a slight majority on the regional water authorities) regard themselves as a local authority group, a majority group and, as it were, ganging up in the interests of local government to get certain decisions taken by the regional water authorities. Those of us who have the respect that I have for local government believe that that is not what is going to happen and not what ought to happen.
It could be argued that if the regional water authorities have a general power to give a local authority responsibility for any part of their work, it would encourage
842
at any rate some members of the less enlightened regional water authorities to seek to re-establish the rights of local government in a field which many of us wish that local government was not being deprived of but which it is going to be deprived of under this Bill. In spite of the noble Baroness perhaps not being able to do more than repeat what she has already said in regard to the second plea of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I would ask her whether she could not take this matter back for consultation with her right honourable friend to see whether something could be done in these general terms to meet, among others, the totally reasonable point about allowing the Greater London Council to do the obviously sensible job of collecting flotsam and jetsam off the surface of the Thames. Would it not be possible to enable the regional water authority to use a local authority as its agent for certain purposes, without giving the general freedom for which the present Amendment asks and which, I am afraid, I can see the Government declining to give for these general reasons.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent for his helpful remarks, because he has made clear this fundamental principle about the two-tier system. However, I see that what the noble Lords, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Redcliffe-Maud, were talking about was not so much a two-tier system as greater operational flexibility. I understand that it is not necessary to write this into the Bill in this particular way, because subsections (10) and (11) of this clause already make sufficient provision for a water authority and a local authority to enter into arrangements for the latter to carry out specified operations or provide services for the former without the water authority delegating their functions or lessening their accountability. I have also been assured on the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, about the G.L.C. wanting powers to deal with the flotsam in the River Thames. This would come under the new Government clause on recreation and amenity on the River Thames, which would enable the G.L.C. to deal with this particular problem. I hope that with that assurance the noble

843
Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said, and particularly for her last remarks. I very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, had to say. I must say that I was on tenterhooks until he came to the last few words. I thought he was doing his best to build up a strong case against the purpose of my Amendment; but in the end he was extremely helpful because he underlined the point I was trying to make. Local government is not being treated as an equal party in this matter. The noble Baroness referred to subsection (11). The first words of that subsection read:
" A water authority may require an existing local authority who between the passing of this Act …".
I repeat, "a regional water authority may require …". All that I am seeking to provide is that where a local authority is thought to be able to undertake a function better than anybody else, it should be possible to reach an agreement, and if the water authority thought they could better undertake the function they could open negotiations. I take the point that local government members in majority may gang together; but from my experience of local government I cannot see them—they representing a variety of councils—achieving that degree of unanimity. I doubt whether anybody with experience of local government can do so. I still hope that the matter may be looked at again, but in the light of what was said I withdraw the Amendment, while reserving the possibility of coming back again with another form of words unless the Government themselves on reflection feel that there is a point where they can be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 11, line 3, after subsection (11) insert:
("(11A) an existing local authority1 may require a water authority to whom functions or property of an existing local authority, a joint sewerage board, a main drainage authority, a joint board for sewage disposal or
844
statutory water undertakers are transferred by this Act to enter into an arrangement under section 1(1) of the said Act of 1970 with the first mentioned local authority or, where that authority is abolished by the 1972 Act, the local authority or one of the local authorities who replace the abolished authority, for a period of 5 years from 1st April 1974 to provide any services which between the passing of this Act and that date are being provided for the first mentioned authority by the section of the authority, board, committee or undertakers concerned with the functions or property transferred by this Act to the water authority, and it shall be the duty of the water authority who have been so required to enter into such an agreement, unless it is determined by the Secretary of State that the requirement is unreasonable having regard to the provision of those services immediately before that date and the operation of any enactment which comes into force on that date.")
The noble Lord said: It seems to me that the principal object of this Bill is to transfer responsibility for water and sewerage services from local authorities and joint boards to the new regional water authorities. Its main preoccupation is to provide for the continuing operation of those functions after April 1, 1974. In their anxiety to bring the transfer of responsibility into operation simultaneously with local government reorganisation the Government have not left sufficient time for the new regional water authorities to be established and fully staffed by the time they will be required to assume their statutory responsibilities. Recognising this, they have made provision in the Bill to enable the new authorities to call upon local government to continue to provide services corresponding with those which have been provided within the local authorities prior to April 1, 1974.
What the Government have overlooked is that the water departments and the sewage disposal departments of many local authorities provide certain services for other departments of the local authority or, in the case of joint boards, for one or more constituent authorities. For example, the chemists' department of the water or sewage disposal undertaking may carry out tests and analyses on behalf of the engineering, public health or supply departments.
It is true that the Bill makes provision in Clause 6(10) for the regional water authorities to undertake this kind of service for a local authority if it so chooses. The Bill does not, however, enable a

845
local authority to require the water authority to continue to provide this sort of service in the same way that the water authority can require a local authority to do so. It seems to me to be only right and proper that there should be mutual obligations in this respect, and the object of the proposed new subsection is to put the water authorities in a corresponding position to the local authorities under subsection (11) of the clause, with corresponding rights of appeal to the Secretary of State should the regional water authority regard the requirement of the local authority as unreasonable. This is a case of reciprocity, and a reasonable case of reciprocity. I admit that it is rather a lengthy Amendment to achieve a simple purpose, but it is surely a reasonable one. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible to accept it, because it will make for smooth working in a comparatively limited field. It is of course a limited Amendment, but one which to some extent might ease things for the future. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: This Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion has said, is directed at the short-term trantitional problems that will confront local authorities in this coming year and thereafter. It is one for which We have some sympathy, although it might be thought that the problems which might be caused to local authorities would not quite be comparable to those which might be caused to water authorities, because local authorities rely on a great many common services, which water authorities do not. Nevertheless, the Government are anxious to do what they can to minimise any of these problems, and I am advised that if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is prepared to withdraw this Amendment, because the drafting is not quite right, the Government will look at the matter again and discuss putting down an Amendment on similar lines at the Report stage.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I must say that in dealing with Clause 6, her first clause on this Bill, she is making a wonderful start.I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Rationalisation of holdings of property, and of functions]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11, line 14, leave out from ("desirability") to end of line 27 and insert ("in the interests of rationalisation, of doing either or both of the following, that is to say:

(a) altering the boundaries of their area for the purposes of any functions of theirs;

(b) transferring property of theirs to some other water authority.

(2) In discharging their duty to consider the desirability of altering the boundaries of their area for the purposes of any functions, a water authority shall first consider those boundaries which are different for the purposes of different functions, and in discharging their duty to consider the desirability of transferring any property, they shall first consider any property of theirs held for the purposes of any functions which is situated outside their area as constituted for the purposes of those functions.
(3) If a water authority decide that it is desirable to do either or both of the things mentioned in subsection (1) above, they shall make a recommendation to the appropriate Minister or Ministers accordingly, and the appropriate Minister or Ministers may:

(a) if the water authority recommend the alteration of the boundaries of their area, make an order under section 2 above altering those boundaries in accordance with the recommendation; and

(b) if the water authority recommend the transfer of any property of theirs, make an order transferring that property and any rights or liabilities of theirs in connection therewith to a water authority specified in the recommendation.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a long Amendment which redrafts a whole section of Clause 7. It is necessary in a Bill of this kind to have some provision for rationalisation, because the present boundaries of the different types of authority responsible for water services do not coincide, and the boundaries of the water authority will differ initially for differing purposes. The Amendment is designed to make clearer the purpose of the clause, and it also limits the Order-making power contained in the clause for the transfer of property. Other Orders likely to arise in the interests of rationalisation—that is to say, Orders for the alteration of

847
boundaries—would be made under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: Amendment No. 32 is a drafting Amendment. The term "river purification authority" occurs only in subsection (4) of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (4) above")—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Transfer to water authorities of functions of river authorities]:
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 12, line 12, after ("shall") insert (",except where it is a reference to a specified river authority or is to be construed as such,")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33A, and it might be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 33B and 36A. These three Amendments are drafting Amendments and they have a common purpose. They are intended to make it clear that the references to a river authority or to a river authority area whose meaning is modified by Clause 8, and the references to statutory water undertakers whose meaning is modified by Clause 10 are generic references and not references to an individual river authority or river authority area or to an individual statutory water undertaker, as the case may be. Provision will be necessary for modifying references to individual river authorities or river authority areas. In the case of such references which occur in local statutory provisions the necessary provision is contained in Part II of Schedule 5 to the Bill. In the case of references in other documents, the necessary provision would be included in Orders made under Section 254 of the Local Government Act, 1972, as applied by Clause 31 of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 33B.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, after ("shall") insert (",except where it is a reference to a specified area or is to be construed as such,")—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Water Conservation]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 12, line 25, at end insert:
("(2) The reference in this section to action for the purpose of augmenting water resources includes a reference to action for the purpose of treating salt water (whether taken from the sea or elsewhere) by any process for removing salt or other impurities.) "
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34. I hope that this is a straightforward Amendment. It provides for water authorities to include treatment of salt water in action they may take for the purpose of augmenting water resources.
BARONESS WHITE: This is such an innocent looking Amendment that I am not surprised the noble Baroness said so little about it. However, I do not think we should let it pass without at least a comment on it, because the Amendment refers to one of the most important possibilities for the future, and one can suppose that it was left out of the Bill originally only by inadvertence, or maybe this is just a clarification. I think it is true to say that our earlier hopes that desalination would solve our water problems and prevent our having any more controversial reservoirs in Wales have been somewhat dashed by the failure of our brilliant scientists to find a commercially viable way of carrying out the process. They are able to do it technologically, but nobody has yet been able to find a method of doing it which is sufficiently cheap, so far as this country is concerned, at any rate, to be able to compete with water obtainable from other sources. I am of course delighted, if it is necessary to have the specific reference, that it should be included in tine Bill. I only wish that we could have further information from the Goverwment that they are more optimistic than I would suppose them to be. It we could

849
find a method of treating salt water economically it would take a great deal of the controversy out of the whole water situation. I say this with emotion, as a Welsh woman, because I know how fly fellow countrymen have been almost praying that we should find a method of dealing with salt water, which would save our beautiful countryside.
I must confess that when I first learned of these processes, and how they were used in Israel and other places, I was full of hope. Further investigation has dampened my ardour, however, because not only is the method very expensive but, on the present state of knowledge, one has to erect buildings on the foreshore which themselves might ruin the landscape—it would be a different landscape, of course, but it would be equally vulnerable. Therefore, although we are glad to have this Amendment included in the Bill, it must, I fear, be greeted with modified rapture.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether the language of the clause, and also of the Amendment, implies that a single authority will be able to do these things without reference to other authorities? As has been said, there is this question of desalination and it is not just a question of sea water but of any water that is brackish or may have been contaminated. There are methods which do not necessarily apply to sea water and which might prove to be economic. So I should like to know whether one single authority will be able to do these things without reference to any other authority, to the National Water Council or to the Secretary of State.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to begin by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady White, that to the best of my knowledge there is nothing sinister about this Amendment. The first simple point is that Section 135(4) of the Water Resources Act 1963 enables water authorities to take similar action for the purpose of eventually discharging the water into a source of supply in their area. This Amendment, through the re-enactment of Section 4 of the 1963 Act as Clause 9 of the present Bill, preserves the effect of this earlier provision which would otherwise have been lost. My understanding of this Amendment is that in
850
fact it is simply putting into this Bill what has been contained in previous legislation.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: I wonder whether the noble Baroness would forgive my asking a further question. In her very illuminating reply, if I understood it correctly, she said that it is a matter of transferring water from one course into another course within the existing region. We are now talking of removing water from one major water area into another water area—which could be quite a different thing.
BARONESS YOUNG: Yes, I take the noble Lord's point. My understanding is that under the Water Resources Act a river authority would be able to take action for discharging water into a source of supply in their own area. My understanding of this Amendment is that it would make it possible for a decision to be taken at executive level and that a regional water authority would be able to act on its own. I would add, since this is a somewhat technical matter and I am very conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will be much more familiar with it than I am, that if I have not given an adequate reply I will write to him on this matter and give him further information.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect to the noble Baroness, while I am sure we shall be delighted to know that she and the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will be in correspondence with each other, may I say that there are other Members of your Lordships' House who would also like to know the answer to this question. We are dealing with matters which, if they are carried out at all, must be performed on a considerable scale and at very considerable cost. In fact, looking more closely at this whole clause it is not only desalination which worries one (and I must admit I have been in default here by not having checked the reference to the Water Resources Act 1963 as to the precise arrangements for direction), but it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has put his finger on a very important point. These are matters

851
which should not be left to the discretion of a single regional water authority. This brings us back to the question we discussed at an earlier stage: the responsibility for the coordination of these matters. I will not press this point further this afternoon because, as I say, I have not looked up the earlier reference in the 1963 Act to see precisely who has the duty of making directions under that earlier Act. However, I should like to put to the noble Baroness that although not only the Amendment but the clause itself looks innocent, if one looks into it a little further one finds that doubts are raised, and they are reinforced by the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman.
BARONESS YOUNG: May I say to the noble Baroness, that whatever letter I write to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, I will certainly write to her too, so that everyone may be fully informed, because I accept that this is a very important matter. I understand that the effect of the clause is that whatever actions a water authority may take. whether augmenting resources in its own area or transferring them to another area, may include desalination. When I rose to reply for the second time, the noble Baroness, Lady White, had raised a much larger point about desalination generally. My information on this matter comes from the Report of the Water Resources Board entitled Desalination 1972. In fact it seems to indicate that the cost of water from desalination has increased considerably more than that of water from conventional sources. It says this:
".. We cannot foresee in that period "—
that is to the end of the century—
"… any substantial contribution by desalination to water resources in England and Wales. There may, however, be small local applications where the additional cost may be judged worth while."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Water supply]:
4.48 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 35:
852
Page 13, line 14 at end insert ("heretofore").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 35. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 and the Amendment to leave out Clause 11 all deal with the same point. These Amendments seek to remove from the Bill those parts of it that would continue within the structure to set up the statutory water companies. I am very much a local government man and feel bound to say that while, in the context of the Bill, I accept the desirability of the local authority water undertaking being merged under the general framework of the water authorities, I can see no possible justification for the retention within that framework of the statutory water companies. The present position is that we have two bodies carrying out the same function: one called a statutory water company and the other a local authority water undertaking. In the interests of water management as a whole, the Government have decided that one is to go and the other is to remain in being. I think we are bound to ask why.
The local authority undertaking exercise their functions within a democratic set up. Some of these authorities are owned and operated by county boroughs, some by joint boards and some by other local government bodies. An outstanding example of this is the Metropolitan Water Board—surely an excellent example of a municipal co-operative. This Board is to go, and the statutory water companies are to find a place in the new structure. It must be noted that those companies are privately owned and managed in the interests of the shareholders of the company. I recognise that they have to be managed within the limits imposed on them by legislation; but the control of them, under Clause 11 of this Bill, will bear no comparison with the control that will be directly exercised by the regional water authorities on their own undertakings which the Bill takes away from the local authorities.
During the past year the Government have talked a good deal about strengthening local government, of hiving off powers from the centre to the local authorities. but I am bound to say that not much has been done to make a reality of that type of talk. The Housing Finance Act is still very much in our minds in this connection. That was something of a slap in the face for the local

853
authorities and their elected members. Now, by this Bill we are going to give them another slap, for good measure. We take away their water undertakings but leave somewhat comparable bodies that are privately owned in their existing owners' hands. If it is essential for the distribution of water for the management of the water cycle to be the task of the regional water authorities, surely that applies right across the board. There are some arguments, I admit, in favour of the private water companies, but those arguments stem rather from the fact that they are local in character rather than anything else. The arguments, as I understand them, are largely a matter of size and proximity to the people served by the companies. But the same arguments surely apply to the local authority water undertakings. They must apply equally, because both are local in character. The local touch will be lost when the management of water distribution by local authorities is taken twenty or perhaps many more miles away, as the case may be. I can see no possible justification for the existence of water companies which is not present in the existence of local authority undertakings.
I can, however, see the case, which is really the basis of the Bill, for the management of water from the source to the consumer being one operation. I can see the case for the employment of highly efficient and perhaps expensive technological equipment, with highly efficient and perhaps expensive brains to control it and plan its use. That means big undertakings, and for that reason I do not oppose the merging of the local authority water undertakings under the regional water authorities. I believe, with the Government, that this will provide an advantage. Indeed, if I remember something that was said in Committee in the other place, it is reckoned that eventually huge economies will occur as a result of the merging of bodies and control passing on to the centre of the regional water authorities. But if that is the case, it must apply equally to the statutory water companies. As I understand it, these statutory water companies account for 22 per cent. of the public supplies of water. That is an indication of the size of the gap which leaving them out will make in the overall management of water supplies by the regional water authorities.
To leave water companies still in existence seems to me to make a nonsense of much of what the Government are trying to do by this Bill. I doubt whether the noble Baroness will be able to give me as satisfactory an answer on this Amendment as she did on the last one; but I fear that if her answer is not pretty good we shall have to take her through the Division Lobbies to show our disapproval of what the Government are doing in this connection. Of course, before making a final decision on this matter I shall listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I have great respect for the fairness of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I was not quite sure what line he was going to take in moving this group of Amendments. I had a suspicion that there was an element of a suggestion that this might be a good opportunity for deploying the arguments for a takeover of the statutory water undertakings. I do not think he has gone literally to that point; but the main theme, if I have understood him correctly, is a complaint about the disparity of treatment between the local authority water undertaking's position under the Bill and that of the statutory companies' position. I am not going to weary the Committee by attempting to enter into an academic argument on the principles of nationalising or taking over all the means of production of goods or services essential to the life of the community. I think our primary concern in this Bill is the efficiency of the water industry under the proposals of the Bill. On that basis I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes to attempt to put the position of the water companies in perspective.
Statutory companies were the pioneers of the industry as it is to-day and ensured that 99 per cent. of the people in England and Wales now have a piped water supply as compared with 60 per cent. in the United States and 40 per cent. in France. In terms of availability of potable water to the population it can be claimed fairly that in this country we have the best water supply in the world. The history of water supply as we know it to-day began in the early years of the 19th century when the twin developments of the mass production of cast iron pipes

855
and the use of steam for pumping made practicable the provision of piped water supplies to service large areas; and companies were formed by local residents in the initial stages to provide this service.
The Public Health Act of 1875 gave local authorities a general power to act as water undertakers. By the end of the nineteenth century every large town had its own piped water supply, in some cases run by companies and in others by local authorities. In the early part of the twentieth century piped supplies were gradually—somewhat slowly at first, but more rapidly later—extended by local auhorities and companies to the surrounding countryside in their respective areas. By 1945 there were over 1,000 separate statutory water undertakings. However, following the Coalition Government White Paper entitled A National Water Policy, substantial regrouping and refinement of the industry was planned under the Water Act of 1945, and to-day the total number of undertakings is 160, of which 44 are local authorities, 85 are joint boards and 31 arc companies. Of the 18 largest undertakings, 9 are statutory companies.
In 1956 there were 85 statutory companies which supplied 20 per cent. of the water. To-day, by regrouping and amalgamation, largely under their own initiative but in harmony with Government policy, that number has been reduced to 30 statutory companies; and these 30 supply 20 per cent. of the requirements of England and Wales—a figure very close to the one quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. Statutory companies are public companies incorporated by private Acts of Parliament. They are subject to the same statutory limitations as the majority of local authorities as regards maximum charges; their dividends on preference and ordinary capital are limited by Statute and the preference capital is noncumulative. The total issued capital of these 30 companies is £236 million and the average return is 6·8 per cent. Charges made by the companies for water supply approximate very closely to those made by local authorities. In general it is true to say that they amount to no more than is sufficient to meet their working expenses, to service the capital
856
employed, and to provide the necessary reserves for future development.
I certainly cannot speak for all companies, but from such experience as I have had—and I have had experience of a few—some of these companies are highly efficient, devote a great deal of time and money to research and technical improvements in the methods of supply, and have good relations, uniformly I believe, with their staff and with the public they serve. They have not as an Association argued against the reorganisation proposed in this Bill, although to some extent their independence is impaired by their being put in the position of acting as agents for the new authorities. So far as their own supply areas are concerned, it is a sensible arrangement, for their knowledge and experience will be pooled for the general benefit and there will be full mobility of staff between the companies and the authorities.
I believe the semi-independence of the companies and their responsibilities to their shareholders is a good thing for the industry, and I can foresee some healthy competition between companies and the other undertakings within the various water authorities: competition which I would hope would be for the benefit of both and for the public they serve. Quite apart from any Party political considerations or the costs and complications involved in takeover, it does not, in my judgment, make any kind of sense to take this part of the industry into national ownership. The industry is, I believe, on the whole, an efficient industry as it is. Under this Bill I hope it will become even more efficient.
BARONESS STOCKS: Surely all that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has said about the water undertakings could be said, and indeed has been said, by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy about the local authority undertakings. I think if we let this arrangement stand the Government have a contradiction in policy. Personally, I am not in this matter pro-local authority; and I have a strong suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, is saying in this debate what he might have said very properly in the debate on Lord Brockway's Motion.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I greatly dislike to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord

857
Sinclair of Cleeve, because we are firm allies in another part of the Bill, but on this one I am afraid I cannot accept his proposition. As my noble friend Lady Stocks has said, what is sauce for the local-authority goose should be sauce for the statutory-company gander. The arguments are precisely the same. What are we trying to do in this Bill? We are trying to set up very large multi-purpose authorities which shall be responsible for the whole control of the hydrological cycle within their areas. The fact that 22 per cent. (according to the Minister in another place) of the water supplies in this country are in the hands of the statutory companies means that this is not something inconsiderable. This is a very significant proportion indeed of the total water supply. If we are setting up these large multi-purpose authorities, one of the objects of the exercise is to secure maximum flexibility. This is the reason given to the local authority companies, including the Metropolitan Water Board, which after all has a most noble tradition, why they should lose all their functions; why they should be absorbed; why they should no longer remain responsible for water supplies, sewerage and the rest: because they must in the greater good of the nation surrender these functions, surrender their tradition Of service, to the overriding requirements of national organisation and the regional water authorities.
What possible argument can one advance to differentiate between the local authorities and the statutory water companies in these matters? The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, spoke about healthy competition. But, as he knows very well, under the arrangements of the Bill, and under the existing arrangements come to that, the statutory water companies are in fact so closely bound—and they will be further bound by the provisions of the Bill before us—that their freedom of action is considerably circumscribed. They are not permitted, as he himself confirmed, freedom of action so far as financial arrangements are concerned. The amount they are allowed to pay on their issued capital, and so on, is controlled. So I cannot see in the new set-up under this Bill what advantage the public gain from retaining what we frankly regard as an anachronism. Of course what the noble Lord
858
said about the functions of the statutory companies in the early days is correct. They were pioneers in many parts of the country. No one would deny it; but that, with the greatest respect, is not germane to the argument before us. We are not considering merits and past history; we are considering how to reorganise for the future. Sentiment apart—and sentiment applies equally strongly to local authorities—I cannot think that there is any really sound argument for this. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, referred to responsibility to shareholders. But then the local authorities have a responsibility to ratepayers. Where is the difference?
The only argument of substance which the Government have advanced is that it would cost money in compensation. But of course, on the other side, one would in the future be obtaining the revenue from charges which now flows to the statutory companies; those revenues would then come directly to the regional water authorities. No. This is really a matter on which we on this side feel the deepest possible regret and a certain element, I think, of resentment because we feel this is a distinction which ought not have been made. It is one of the only two Party political arguments in this Bill. For the rest, we have our differences of view and differences of interest, and so on, but this we regard as really a bit of straightforward political dogmatism. We cannot see that in merit there is any sound reason for exempting one-fifth of the water supply organisations in this country simply because they have a highly restrictive form of private ownership. It is not normal private ownership; it is not the private ownership where individual enterprise can have its head or anything of that sort; it is circumscribed in every direction. Therefore to our minds it is really very little more than a method of keeping certain local notabilities (shall I put it?) in positions of influence and power which they otherwise might not attain. I do not think there is very much more to it than that, and for those reasons, subject to what my noble friend Lord Champion may say, because it was he who moved this Amendment, I think this is an occasion on which we ought to record our disapproval.
LORD PEDDIE: I am prompted to intervene in this discussion because of

859
the assertion of my noble friend Lady White that this involves a matter of deep Party principle. So far as I am concerned it does not. So far as I am concerned, the matter truly at issue is whether or not this Bill creates an organisation and a structure that is efficient, and I cannot for the life of me see how and in what way taking over the statutory water companies as such would add to the overall efficiency.
At this stage I should declare an interest in the sense that I am a member of the board of a water company; but I would assure the Committee that my knowledge and my belief in the contribution made by water companies extends over a period far longer than I have been a member of the board. I have had some opportunity of studying the efficiency of statutory water company operations. I do not wish to repeat the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. There is not the slightest doubt that over past years—indeed in the early development in the water industry—the companies have made an outstanding contribution, but I would accept that, regardless of whatever contribution they made in the historical sense it does not necessarily have a bearing on the situation now.
I agree that it was a mistake not to retain local authority undertakings as well as the companies as agents to work in water distribution. But two wrongs do not make a right, and I rise now to challenge the point of view expressed by my noble friends that the water companies are motivated by profit alone and function for the benefit of the shareholders. That is just not true. It is not the case that water companies function solely for the benefit of the shareholders; indeed the average return on money invested is about 6¿8 per cent. (so I am told) which is far less than the charges on loans for local authorities. We have already heard it stated, and accepted by my noble friends, that the profits, charges, dividends and reserve funds are controlled by Statute. So in what way is there a justification for pulling them in, merely because the local authorities have not been given the same privilege?—which I think they should have had.
860
Speaking in terms of efficiency, I remember well an association with the P.I.B. when we made a very detailed survey of the whole of the water industry and the companies came out very well. I may also mention—when one is considering whether or not these bodies are run just for shareholders—that on the board on which I sit there are three men whose lifetime's work has been in water engineering. That is three out of seven. Two have had a lifetime's involvement in the administration and financial operation of water undertakings; another is deeply involved in the public and social life of that area. That accounts for six—and I forget about myself. I believe that the retention of statutory companies will add to the overall efficiency of water distribution and will maintain a closer link with users. In short, I see a measure of value in retaining statutory companies as agents: I see no benefit to the overall water distribution by accepting this Amendment.
LORD BRAVE: Might not one solution to this problem be to give a certain number of seats on the new water authority to members of the existing county council?
BARONESS YOUNG: When the noble Lord, Lord Champion, introduced these Amendments, he expressed the hope that I could be as helpful to him on these Amendments as I was on the last one. But I am sure he will have realised, as I have done, that these Amendments constitute an issue of principle on which Members on each side of the Committee are divided. However, I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. and I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve for his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, asked an important question; namely, whether or not the efficiency of the regional water authorities would be impaired by the existence of the statutory water companies—and he made it quite clear that in his opinion they would not. Because I think this is a matter which divides us, I should like to set out as fully as I can the reasons that have led the Government to the conclusions that they have reached.
The statutory water companies were created by local Acts to supply water and their profits are strictly regulated by

861
Statute. They have in general expanded their operations in recent years as a result of the regrouping of water undertakings, which has continued under both Labour and Conservative Governments. My information is that to-day there are 31 statutory water companies responsible for 22 per cent. of public water supplies, and they include a number of the largest and most efficient undertakings in the country. It is our view that the most important fact about them is that they represent an injection of private capital into the water industry, the amount of money involved being about £250 million. We believe that this feature ought to be preserved, if possible. Quite apart from anything else, it is obviously undesirable that the Exchequer should have to raise this amount of money to buy out the stockholders and shareholders unless it is essential to do so.
So we have looked for a way to retain the companies within the new system and we believe that we have found a way of doing so, as they will become agents of the water authorities. They are being incorporated into the reorganised system and placed firmly under the operational control of the water authorities. Clause 11, which one of the Amendments seeks to delete from the Bill, requires agreements to be made between the companies and the water authorities, or, in the event of failure, provides for determination by the Secretary of State. Certain functions of the Secretary of State under the Water Acts will be transferred to the water authorities, who will have the power to require the companies to carry out surveys, to give or take bulk supplies, and it will also have the power to take over the functions of a company should it default on its obligations.
The water authorities will take over the functions of the present river authorities in respect of the licensing and control of abstractions and they will be given new powers to take over compulsorily any source works belonging to a statutory water company, subject to the payment of appropriate compensation. Furthermore, the capital investment programme of these companies will be included in the capital investment programme of the regional water authority and will have to be submitted to the Secretary of State. We believe that by these means, by this combination of controls
862
and the fact that the statutory water companies will be financially independent, we shall be able to retain the companies but at the same time not interfere with the comprehensive management of water resources which is one of the features of this Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? She talked about retaining the companies: are the Government contemplating—as they think that these are such meritorious organisations—that there should be new ones, that they should be extended, or that there should be more of them?
BARONESS YOUNG: It is rather diffcult to foresee whether in the future anybody will wish to set up another private water company in these circumstances.
BARONESS WHITE: Would they be allowed to do so under the Bill?
BARONESS YOUNG: As far as I know it would be possible, but if I am not correct in that I shall of course let the noble Baroness know.
Noble Lords raised the argument about the difference between the statutory water companies and the position of local authorities. I would say on this matter that we believe that by giving local authority representatives a majority on the regional water authority—which I think meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Braye—we have given them a real role to play in the whole of the management of water, whereas if they were put into the position of being subject to the kind of controls that the statutory water companies are going to find themselves subject to, they would not have the power and the freedom that they have enjoyed in the past and I think would find themselves in a much more unsatisfactory position than their representatives will find when they serve on the regional water authorities. I do not think that for them it would have the kind of independence and power that they have enjoyed in the past. They will find a more satisfactory role as members of the regional water authorities, rather than finding themselves in the same position as the statutory water companies are in. It is for these reasons that we think it is right to retain the statutory water companies. They will not damage our proposals for the regional water

863
authorities, we are keeping something which has worked very well in the past and we see no reason why it should not continue to work well in the future.
5.23 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: I find the arguments against the proposition that I put at the outset entirely unconvincing. The more I have listened, the more it seems to me that here is something which clearly ought to be brought within the terms of the Bill and be part of the undertakings of the water authorities. The fact that these water companies have done fairly well in the past—and I have no complaints to make about them —is no justification, it seems to me, for their continuation under the new set-up. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in favour of water companies would say precisely the same about the water undertakings of the local authorities. They have done an extraordinarily good job in the past. In the interests of ensuring that water management is carried out, as the Government obviously desire that it shall be carried out, from the collecting of the water to its final consumption and use within that cycle, surely the water companies ought to go and the whole undertaking be conducted by the single body, the water authority.
The noble Baroness said that the profits of these water companies were limited by Statute. That of course is the case. I said that they worked within the bounds imposed upon them by legislation. But that does not, in my opinion, justify their retention in the new set-up. The noble Baroness told us that there was £250 million of private capital involved and that difficulty would be caused if the Government had to purchase those undertakings and pay that £250 million, or some such figure, for them. But I agree with my noble friend Lady White, that the servicing of the cost of purchasing these undertakings would be met from the revenue which would be derived as a result of the charges which would be made by the water authorities to those users who have, up to now, been using and paying for the water companies' water. I must also press the point which has been made, and the question
864
which the noble Baroness unfortunately did not answer, as to whether under this Bill it would be possible to set up any new companies in the future. I must admit that I do not think it a likelihood or a possibility.
BARONESS YOUNG: I wonder whether I might give a more complete answer than I gave earlier. My understanding is that there is no provision in this Bill either to set up or to prohibit the setting up of any new companies. That would need separate legislation and it is rather difficult to foresee the kind of circumstances in which it would be necessary.
LORD CHAMPION: I think that answers the point. There is one other question I should like to ask before we depart from our consideration of this matter. Are the Government doing anything now to prevent some local authorities from selling off their undertakings to private water companies? It has been suggested that in some parts of the country local authorities are contemplating selling their undertakings before the Bill becomes operative—selling them, that is, to private water companies. Can the noble Baroness give us any information on this matter, and, if so, can she tell me, if there is to be such a move, whether the Government will step in to prevent that from happening? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to obtain that information. So far as I can see, the pigeon post is working and there is just the possibility that there will be a flutter around that side of the House and that shortly the noble Baroness will find—not on the leg of the noble Earl, Lord Ferriers —the answer to the question that I am here posing. I sincerely hope that the answer will be that the Government will certainly take every step to ensure that these undertakings are not sold off by these local authorities in an endeavour to frustrate the will of the Government in this matter. I can go on.
BARONESS YOUNG: No, there is no need for the noble Lord so kindly to keep speaking any longer. I now know the position on the question of the re-grouping. I understand that there has in fact been one re-grouping; that is between the Chesham Urban District Council and the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company, where an order has been

865
made and the date of operation is March 30 this year. There are three others that are before a public inquiry at the moment. There are two others that I understand are waiting for a public inquiry.
LORD CHAMPION: I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness was telling us. This is not a question of merging. The question here is as to whether the local authorities are preparing to sell off their undertakings or permit them to be merged within the bodies that she was talking about which will be the subject of the private inquiry.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. My understanding is that in the first case that I mentioned, these water undertakings would be merged and would be taken over by a private water company and that the others are subject to inquiry.
LORD CHAMPION: The only thing I can say about that is that the Government are clearly failing in their duty to the new undertakings that are to be set up, and I should be wasting the time of the House if I said any more about it. I shall certainly challenge the decision
of the Government in this matter by asking my noble friends to accompany me through the Lobby.
LORD PEDDIE: Before my noble friend resumes his seat, may I ask him to explain a point that he raised in his comments? He made the point that it would be possible to purchase assets of statutory companies and service those loans, or in whatever way it was done, out of the revenue of the statutory companies. As the present cost of the capital employed in water companies or statutory companies is so low, does he not agree that if financing was done along the lines he suggested it would cost the user more in consequence?
LORD CHAMPION: I do not think so. I do not think that when spread over the whole of the area of a regional water authority that that would be the effect of it.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
The Lordships divided Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L.

George-Brown, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stocks, B.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. B [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Clancarty, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Platt, L.

Wigg, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williamson, L.

Gardiner, L.

Seear, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Fortescue, E.

Amory, V.

Craigavon, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Auckland, L

Cranbrook, E.

Gamer, L.

Aylesford, E.

Crathorne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Balfour, E.

Daventry, V.

Grafton, D.

Berkeley, B.

de Clifford, L.

Greenway, L.

Bradford, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Grenfell, L.

Brecon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hailes, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Dundee, E.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Carrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Coleraine, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hanworth, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Conesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Jessel, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrers, E.

Kemsley, V.

Courtown, E.

Fisher, L.

Killearn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Moyne, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L,

Somers, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lothian, M.

Peddie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Rankeillour, L.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Tenby, V.

Luke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lyell, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Lytton, E.

Rochdale, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rockley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mancroft, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Merrivale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wolverton, L.

Monck, V.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Selkirk, E.

Yarborough, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [iTeller.]

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

Shannon, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.39 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 36A.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("undertakers") insert ("as such").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: On the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, there are one or two questions I should like to address to the opposite Front Bench. I think I ought to say that I am doing so because I am a VicePresident of the Central Fire Liaison Panel, and as a consequence I am aware of some concern on their part in regard to what is going to happen with regard to fire fighting. It is very difficult to exaggerate the importance of this, since the record shows quite clearly that the situation in regard to fire damage in Great Britain is getting no better, and indeed is rapidly getting much worse.
A report was prepared by the Central Advisory Water Committee for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and adopted in 1963, and it stated, inter alia:
"…so long as no charge is to be made to the public for maintaining supplies at hydrants or for water used in fire fighting we consider that there is no sufficient reason to charge for maintaining supplies to private fire fighting installations, or for water used by them.
"Water used for fire fighting should continue to be free of charge.
"No charge should be made for providing a supply for private fire fighting installations. nor for water used by them, but the water undertakers should be entitled to recover certain costs."
868
These parts of this particular report do not appear to have been implemented, and there is concern lest charges for the supply of water for fire fighting purposes, including automatic sprinkler systems, should be levied in such a way as to provide a disincentive to industry to protect itself against fire. The Bill, in its present form, allows for directives by the Secretary of State on matters affecting national policy and matters of national interests, including directives on charging schemes.
At present, as I have indicated, water taken from a public main to extinguish a fire at a factory would not be chargeable to the company. The Bill, as it stands, is not clear whether water authorities will be directed to levy charges for water used in extinguishing fires. If the reply is to be that no charge is to be made for such supply of water, I wonder whether I might raise a further question, and ask whether water authorities will be expected to introduce a by-pass on the meter system in order that there will be a really adequate supply of water, because if the water does not need to pass through the meter the flow of water, I understand, can be considerably increased.
I hope that my question is clear. What directives is the Secretary of State likely to give in respect of charges, and has any thought been given, if no charges are to be made, to introduce a system which by-passes the meters? If this were undertaken it could, incidentally, in many instances, if not all, considerably increase the flow of water to be used for fire fighting purposes.
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, an adequate answer. I apologise to the Committee for some of the gaps in my

869
knowledge, but coming to this Bill somewhat late in the day I am not absolutely conversant with every part of it. My understanding on the question of water supply for fire fighting is that there is statutory provision that water authorities would make water available for firefighting. This is Part VIII of Schedule 3 of the Water Act, 1945. This position will remain unchanged.
On the second part of the question the noble Lord asked, the question of charges will be a matter for the National Water Council and the regional water authorities to work out in order to secure a common policy. This may not answer the question fully, and I think it would probably be for the noble Lord's convenience, and that of the people who have asked him to raise this point, if I wrote to him more fully on the matter, which I shall do.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She has replied in a very gracious fashion. I must say that I am finding it somewhat distracting when there is a little subcommittee meeting going on in the corner of the Chamber. I am very grateful to her, and I am quite sure that if she writes it will be possible to give full consideration to the matter, and indeed I shall be glad of the opportunity to take advice from the panel.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supply of water by statutory water companies on behalf of water authorities]:
5.46 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 14, line 17, at end insert—
("(c) the company's charges for the supply of water.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37A, and I should like to take with it Amendment No. 37D. These two Amendments go together and would make clear that the arrangements between a water authority and a statutory water company under Clause 11 may include provision about the company's charges for the supply of water. The second Amendment is consequential upon the first, and provides that the Secretary of State shall not so settle or vary arrangements under Clause
870
11 as to require the company to fix their charges at a level which would endanger their ability to provide a reasonable return on their paid-up capital. This limitation is to apply only so long as the company's undertaking is efficiently managed.
Since these two Amendments were put down on the Marshalled List my attention has been drawn to the fact that there may still be a defect in the drafting. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to move the two Amendments now, but I may well have to come back at Report stage with a further Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37B:
Page 14, line 28, after ("or") insert ("either of the parties may,")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37B, and I should like to take with it No. 37C. These are both drafting Amendments: they are intended to make clear that if a water authority and a statutory water company are unable to reach an agreement about a proposed variation of the terms under Clause 11, either party may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State for determination.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 37C:
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("may")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESSS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 37D.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 33, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall not so settle or vary arrangements under this section as to oblige the company to fix their charges at a level which will endanger their ability, so long as their undertaking is managed efficiently, to provide a reasonable return on their paidup capital, having regard to their probable future expenditure.")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37E:
Page 15, line 6. after ("12") insert ("or under the said section 13").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment provides that any order which a water authority might make under Section 13 of the Water Act 1945, as applied by the present Bill, declaring a statutory water company to be in default of its obligations and transferring its functions to the water authority, would have effect only if it were confirmed by the Secretary of State. The Bill already provides that any order which a water authority may make, requiring a statutory water company to give or take a bulk supply of water under Section 12 of the Water Act 1945, will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. A default order would clearly be something of greater moment than a bulk supply, and it is therefore appropriate that it also should require confirmation by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Sewerage and sewage disposal]:
5.52 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 37F:
Page 17, line 11, leave out ("and 42") and insert ("42 and subsections (1) and (b) and (2) of section 72 (insofar as those subsections related to the cleansing of cesspools, including septic tanks").
The noble Lord said: In many towns and populous parts of the countryside, there are places where sewage is dealt with in large and, in most cases, highly efficient sewage disposal works; but there still remain many premises—in particular, more remote houses and groups of houses in rural areas—whose drainage is to a cesspool or to a septic tank. This is normally an intermediate form of sewage disposal because, subsequently, the cesspool or septic tank is emptied by the local authority who remove its contents for final disposal elsewhere. The emptying of cesspools and septic tanks by local authorities, or for that matter by contractors, is therefore an integral part of the sewage disposal process. It should therefore be treated as such, certainly so far as finance is concerned. Some local authorities charge for the emptying service, while others provide a
872
free service at stated intervals and charge only for additional calls. But if a system is adopted there usually remains some charge on local funds.
In 1970, the Jeger working party on sewage disposal, in that excellent report, Taken for Granted, recommended that local authorities should provide a free and adequate service for cesspool emptying and septic tank clearance. The size of the problem cannot be clearly defined, but the working party to which I have referred estimated that there were probably about 1,200,000 houses which are not on main drainage, with about 3 million people living in them. That gives some indication of the size of the problem. It would be anomalous if this sector of the sewage disposal process were to remain a direct charge on local authorities, while all the other costs of sewage disposal became a responsibility of the new regional water authorities. It is accordingly the object of this Amendment to transfer the statutory responsibility for cesspool and septic tank emptying to the new regional water authorities, anticipating that under Clause 15 of the Bill they will make arrangements with the new district councils to undertake the actual day-to-day work of emptying on their behalf, but at their expense. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, the effect of this Amendment would be to transfer this function of emptying cesspools from local authorities to the new water authorities. This matter is one about which the arguments are somewhat evenly divided. It can be regarded as a function of public health and one which has been with local government, so we consulted local authorities in order to find out their views. The difficulty was that as a result of our consultations we had divided opinions from the local authorities. The County Councils' Association and the Urban District Councils' Association thought that it was a function which should remain with local government, while the Rural District Councils' Association thought that it should not, unless the authorities had "a constructive role in the wider aspects of sewerage." The Association of Municipal Corporations exprssed no view. Subsequently, however, the Association

873
of Municipal Corporations wrote suggesting that the function should be transferred to the water authorities. We have considered this matter further and have reached the conclusion that, if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will withdraw this Amendment, we can consider it again. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have no difficulty at all in responding to the invitation of the noble Baroness, and I am very pleased to do so. She very rightly said that the Association of Municipal Corporations finally made up their minds on this issue, and I have little doubt that they will have views which they will wish to press. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think I should correct any misunderstanding. The Association of Municipal Corporations wrote again, and the second time said that they thought the function ought to be transferred to the water authorities.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the noble Baroness made that quite clear when she spoke earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.59 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37G:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert ("except any such reference in section 24(4) of the said Act of 1936,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting Amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 14 provides that references to a local authority, in the enactments relating to sewerage which are listed in the subsection, are to be construed as from April 1, 1974, as references to a water authority. This statement would be wrong, however, in the case of Section 24(4) of the Public Health Act 1936, which defines the length of a public sewer for which a local authority can recover the cost of maintenance from other persons. In that subsection, the term "local authority" refers to local authorities as they existed immediately before the beginning of the 1936 Act, and
874
it would therefore clearly be wrong to alter this meaning. I beg to move.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 18, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 39 I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. The purpose of these three Amendments is to introduce greater flexibility into the provision for the discharge of sewerage functions. Clause 15 as at present drafted requires a water authority, under subsection (1), to enter into arrangements for the discharge of their sewerage functions, other than those relating to sewage disposal and any sewers at present vested in joint sewerage boards or the Greater London Council, by the local authority or by a development corporation. Subsection (4) states the date by which the draft arrangements must be sent to the relevant authority by the water authority; and subsection (5) provides for the Secretary of State to settle the terms of the arrangements if the parties are unable to agree.
These Amendments provide that in cases where the two parties decide, in the interests of efficiency, not to enter into such arrangements the water authority are not to take the actions required by subsections (4) and (5). It therefore gives a greater flexibility, and I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 37, after ("sewer") insert ("or sewage disposal works with a designed capacity not exceeding a dry weather flow of 500,000 gallons per day").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I understand that my noble friend's object in these three Amendments—and I should like, if I may, to relate my remarks to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 as well—is to enable regional

875
water authorities, in appropriate cases, to give control functions for sewage disposal, in the case of small sewage disposal works, to districts. This seems to me a sensible idea, because districts would have the technical staff to run such small sewage disposal works, and it would be done only in appropriate cases. I am moving this Amendment really in order to enable my noble friend to tell me her thoughts on these proposals. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: Before the noble Baroness replies to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, may I support the request for further information on this matter and reserve the right to say a few words on Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who is prevented from being here to-day and whose notes I have been given? I will not repeat some of the Devonshire stories in his notes, as I do not have the advantage of the accent which he has, but I should like to raise one or two points after the noble Baroness has replied to the request made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support this Amendment and also declare an interest as a Vice-President of the Urban District Councils Association, which also strongly supports this Amendment. On Second Reading I spoke about the sewerage problem and said I hoped that the Government would seriously consider making agency agreements with local authorities for them to look after sewage plants as their agents. As the Bill now stands, local authorities have to look after all main drains as agents, but they are not allowed to look after the sewage disposal plants. There is a very large number of small plants throughout the country, especially in my part of the world, East Anglia, which have been built by local authorities and admirably looked after. They are nearly all new since the war, and they do not pollute the rivers and streams into which the effluent goes. If the responsibilities were divided, local authorities would have to look after sewers but not the plants. It would be necessary to split the staff and split the offices, and I think this would be all wrong. I hope that, as proposed in the Amendment, these
876
smaller plants, anyway, can be looked after by local authorities as agents.We have just had an Amendment to the effect that statutory water companies are to be allowed to look after water as agents. so in that' way they are second-tier authorities. I do not see at all why local authorities should not look after the sewage plants as agents, and if they do not look after them properly then the agency can be terminated. I strongly support this Amendment.
LORD SLATER: From this side of the Committee I should like to add my support to the Amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I think this is a step in the right direction. After all, for many years district authorities have been responsible for looking after sewerage and for laying down new plants, and they have been able to build up the personnel necessary to provide for their district the services for which they are responsible. Because of that standing I think it would be wrong, and a retrograde step, if we were to take away from the local authorities such responsibility as they have had for so long, and were to allow another section to take over such responsibility. I support the Amendment so ably moved by Lord Amory.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Amory, who, as we know, as President of the County Councils Association, has a great deal of knowledge and experience of local government. The difficulty the Government see in these particular Amendments is that, as in the case of Amendment No. 30 (I think it was), which we discussed earlier on, we believe that it would effectively involve the introduction of a two-tier system into the regional water authorities. I do not feel that I need to go over with the Committee all the arguments which were advanced earlier, save to say that it is the prime function of this Bill to introduce 10 regional water authorities which will be all-purpose authorities; and, of course, one of the principal reasons for making them cover such large areas is to deal with the whole question of sewage disposal, which is such a very complex and technical matter. In fact, we believe that the only way in which, in the coming years, we shall be able to manage the

877
disposal of sewage, the cleaning up of rivers and all the pollution problems, is to put the whole of sewage disposal under the regional water authorities.
However, I am advised that under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 as applied by the Bill, a water authority, if it so wishes, will be able to enter into an agreement with the local authority for the operation of such works. The local authority would be able to operate and maintain a particular sewage disposal works on behalf of a water authority, or to operate and maintain any trunk sewers which are not included in the arrangements under Clause 15 of the Bill, or to make professional engineering services available to the water authority for the purpose of designing small sewage disposal works and supervising contracts for their construction. I do not know whether this goes far enough to meet the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and his supporters have raised, but I think it goes a long way in the direction in which they are going, and I hope that they will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: First I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Gainsborough. I had no idea that he was the authorised delegate of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I intervened only because of the natural instinct of one Devonian to rush to the aid of another. I think I would there fore ask the Committee to disregard what I said earlier and to substitute the remarks of Lord Gainsborough. I think that both Lord Gainsborough and I will have been interested to have heard what the noble Baroness said. Apparently sewage work can be arranged with a district council. That, it seems to me, goes some way towards the points raised. I do not know Lord Gainsborough's view, but in the light of what my noble friend has said with his agreement I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I would agree with my noble friend Lord Amory on this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
878
Page 18, line 41, after ("sewers") insert ("and sewage disposal works").
The noble Earl said: In view of what has been said by the noble Baroness, I do not think it would be right to occupy the time of the Committee by speaking to Amendments 41 or 42. I do not move the Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: This is another drafting Amendment. Clause 15(3)(b) of the Bill refers to a joint sewerage board or main drainage authority" whereas Clause 30(g) which abolishes certain bodies refers only to "joint sewerage boards". The Amendment seeks to make the two references consistent and to resolve any doubts about bodies abolished by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("or main drainage authority").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Subject to subsection (5A) below, a water authority shall, not later than 1st November 1973, send to every relevant authority with whom they are under a duty to endeavour to make arrangements under subsection (1) above a draft of the arrangements with the relevant authority.
(5) Subject to subsection (5A) below").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 29, at end insert—
("(5A) If at any time before arrangements are settled under this section a water authority and a relevant authority come to the conclusion that in the interests of efficiency it would be inexpedient to enter into any arrangements under subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, to be bound by arrangements settled by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above—

(a) the water authority shall not take the action required by subsection (4) or (b) above; or

(b) where the water authority have already notified the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above that arrangements have not been entered into, they shall further notify him of the conclusion

879
and he shall not settle the terms of the arrangements.")—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Before this clause passes from the discussion, I should like to point out that despite all efforts made (and I said this the other day) by local authority representatives of standing in regard to the functions to be allocated to the regional water authorities under the Bill, and despite the fact that the authority associations have said in the wisdom of their many years' experience that a more positive involvement of the local areas would take place, there seems to have been little move in that direction. As somebody who came from a rural area and represented one for many years, with the development of farming, so far as I am concerned not enough attention has been given to the problem of farm sewage in rural areas. In this excellent Jeger Report which is taken for granted, the original number of farms connected to the sewage system was put at some 4,000. Later, we are told, the Committee corrected that figure and give 10,000 farms. With the development of factory farming and disposal, because of more intense rural farming of farming sewage the cost per animal is much higher than the cost of moving in cities, despite the apparent simple, open, way of sewage disposal on farms. As civilisation presses more and more and urbanisation spreads into our beautiful rural areas (and that is as it must be, for men are living like insects these days) we are in duty bound to look in depth at this matter of farm sewage disposal. I still feel, despite all the talk in Committee and the many days spent in this House and another place, that this is a section of the Bill that has been completely forgotten or has not be treated in depth.
The other point I mentioned is the development of use in our laboratories of radio-active isotopes. These isotopes go into the sewage system. This is one of the things to which much more attention should be paid. The Jeger Report mentions at page 42 farms disposing of their slurry into the sewage system and some of the impractical ways of their
880
disposing of it. I will not weary your Lordships by quoting from the Report. It is available to your Lordships and is beautifully written. This Report is one of the "top ten" Reports of the century so far as demand for it is concerned. Even if there is not time now and we cannot correct this—and I regret that the local rural areas have not a bigger say in this matter—I would urge that we look carefully at the disposal of farm waste. Time is not on our side. This should be looked at now.
LORD SLATER: I was rather disappointed when the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, withdrew the previous Amendments. I did not make my protest at the time but in discussing whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, I am wondering what consultation took place with the sanitary inspectors' association and the sanitary surveyors who have been responsible for looking after the sanitation and sewage disposal for local authorities up and down the country for many years. The noble Baroness said in the course of her observations that an agreement would be arrived at between the water authority and the local authorities. We have seen some of these agreements arrived at in the past. We have seen delegation from local authority to district authority in highway development. Eventually the time arrives when the county authority (of which I was a member as well as being a member of the district authority) took away that form of delegation and took it upon themselves to become the highway authority responsible for the whole county highway development. I am afraid in the course of these agreements between the two forms of association that the time will come when, if the new authority (the higher authority, against that of the district authority) want to break these types of agreement they will do so as they have done in the past. I am only sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, should have done what he did on this occasion. The noble Viscount moved the Amendment in the absence of his noble friend and he thought that he was justified in withdrawing it. I wish to ask whether any representations have been made by the sanitary inspectors' association or the sanitary surveyors.
BARONESS YOUNG: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I think that we are in complete agreement on this matter of sewage disposal. I have said several times that difficulties and problems raised by this matter are one of the principal reasons for the form of reorganisation which appears in the Bill. From reading the Jeger Report I know of the kind of problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, drew our attention. We hope that is the kind of thing that the larger authorities, with more money, will be able to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, asked whether there had been discussions with sanitary inspectors, and I am wondering whether these are the same people that I think of as public health inspectors. I suspect that they are. Having made that remark, I must say I am afraid that I have not that information before me, but I will take steps to find out and let the noble Lord know.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Requisitioning of sewers for domestic purposes]:
6.22 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 20, line 31, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) It shall be the duty of a water authority to provide any public sewer to be used for domestic purposes for the drainage of premises in their area—

(a) if the owners or occupiers of the premises require the authority to provide a public sewer, otherwise than for the drainage of new buildings which they propose to erect on the premises, and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied; or

(b) if the owners of the premises require the authority to provide a public sewer for the drainage of new buildings which they propose to erect on the premises and the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are satisfied; or

(c) if the conditions specified in subsection (4) below are satisfied.

(2) In a case to which paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above applies, the conditions which must be satisfied are—

(a) that the reckonable charges payable in respect of the premises will not be less than the qualifying amount; and

(b) that the persons making the requisition agree severally with the water authority to pay the reckonable charges in respect of
882
the premises for three years at least from the date on which the laying of the sewer is completed.

(3) In a case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) applies, the conditions which must be satisfied are—

(a) that the sewer which the owners of the premises require the water authority to provide is a sewer communicating (in such manner and in such place as the authority consider appropriate) with a private sewer provided by the owners; and

(b) that the owners undertake to meet any relevant deficit.

(4) The conditions mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above are—

(a) that the rcckonable charges payable in respect of the premises will be less than the qualifying amount; and

(b) that the local authority in whose area the premises are situated undertake to meet any relevant deficit.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I should like to discuss with it Nos. 46B. 46C, 46D, 46E, 46F, 46H, 46J, and 46K. This whole series of Amendments result from an Amendment which was agreed in another place and they arise from the redrafting of this clause. The clause was introduced by the Government in another place in response to an undertaking to provide power for local authorities and private persons to requisition sewerage facilities in the same way as they have power to requisition water supplies, subject, as always, to their willingness to make guaranteed payments where necessary. It was stated at the time that the text of the Amendment needed further consideration. These Amendments are designed to meet that. They are primarily drafting Amendments and should give to local authorities the same arrangements with regard to sewerage as they have with regard to water.
LORD CHAMPION: I have no fault to find with the purpose behind the Amendment but I wish to make a mild protest about the way in which all these Amendments have been presented to the Committee. In this clause there are 14 subsections; two are to go and of the remaining 12, 10 are being amended by this mass of Amendments. I found a great deal of difficulty in reading the clause, I tried to put into it the whole of what is contained in the Amendments, and it is extremely difficult to read the clause as it will appear. As subsections (1) and (2) are to go and we are to get these massive Amendments,

883
by far the easier course would have been to have withdrawn the whole clause, reprinted it and presented it again in a manner which would have been easy for noble Lords, and indeed local authorities, to read. To present a series of Amendments in this form seems to me to be a nonsense and to pay no regard to the Committee. I mention this only in the hope that Parliamentary draftsmen, who may consider my words, will in future, when they propose to make such a series of Amendments, consider withdrawing the whole clause and presenting it in a readable form.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have considerable sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I had difficulty in mastering these Amendments, but I am sure that the point has been taken and that it is being done to meet the wishes of various people in both Houses. This is, I think, an Amendment with which we shall all agree. I understand that it is a very complex matter, but if I have understood the situation right it is ultimately something which will make the provision of houses a more straightforward matter, in the sense that it links the drainage with the houses. It is important that the whole clause should be included and that the Amendments should correctly state what is implied. For this reason I am moving the Amendment. I am sorry that it should have caused so much difficulty.
LORD CHAMPION: I have no fault to find with the clause and I thought it worth while when I say that it had been introduced in another place. It was obvious that some amendment would have to be made. I agree to the Amendments that are proposed, but I protest at the form in which they have been presented to us.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 29, leave out ("(2) above shall in any event") and insert ("(3) or (4) above shall").—(Baroness Young.)
LORD CHAMPION: May we not take Amendments Nos. 46C to 46K en bloc?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD JESSEL): With the permission of the Committee I will call Amendments Nos. 46C to 46K.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 46C to 46K.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
Page 21, line 38, leave out ("local or").
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
Page 22, line 14, leave out from ("not") to ("they") in line 15 and insert ("lay the necessary sewer within six months or such longer period as may be agreed between the parties or be determined under subsection (10) below".
Page 22, line 18, leave out subsection (9).
Page 22, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
("(b) as to the period within which a sewer is to be laid, shall be determined by a referee appointed by the parties or in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
( ) In this section—

"local authority" does not include a county council or the Greater London Council;

"necessary for domestic purposes" means necessary 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;

"qualifying amount", in relation to a sewer, means one-eighth of the expense of providing it and of providing any other sewer whose provision the water authority consider necessary or expedient in consequence;

"reckonable charges", in relation to a sewer, means charges in respect of the drainage of premises attributable to its use and includes such proportion of any charge payable under Part III of this Act for services which include sewerage as is stated by the water authority to be so attributable;

"relevant deficit" means the difference between the qualifying amount and the reckonable charges received by a water authority in respect of each year.

( ) It shall be the duty of a water authority, at the request of any person, to state the proportion of any charge under Part III of this Act which is a reckonable charge for the purposes of this section.").
Page 22, line 38, after ("a") insert ("public").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I will not delay the Committee but I wish to ask a couple of questions because Clause 16 deals mainly with the issue of pollution; or, rather, there is opportunity, through the provisions in the clause, to deal with pollution. Paragraph 414 of the Jeger Report states:
"Priorities for research should include treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, treatment and disposal of farm waste, the removal of nutrient salt and organic residues from polluted waters and the development of improved criteria for assessing pollution."
I believe those objectives to be absolutely essential, particularly so far as the rural areas are concerned. In the Trent-Severn authority an area has been made from Bristol to the Humber and it is too large to deal with this problem.
During the Committee stage in another place a first-class case was made for estuarial groups to deal particularly with pollution and sewage in estuary areas and shedding from the regional areas the responsibility for the two estuarial areas. The two most polluted areas in Britain are bunched together; namely, the Trent Estuary and the Severn Estuary. What I want to ask is whether we have really looked into this in depth. Does the Minister not think that we should take more care before we agree Clauses 16 and 17, with some of the Government Amendments? I think that we should have this brought back to us after the number of approaches that have been made by local authorities throughout Britain for the last two years.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, correctly, he is again concerned about the sewage disposal arrangements, particularly in the new river authority of Severn and Trent. I can only give him the answer that I gave him before: that we recognise that there is a strong link between the provision of sewage disposal arrangements and the pollution of rivers, and it is because we feel that these two matters are linked that we are making the regional water authorities allpurpose authorities. We believe that they will have the power to carry out the functions mentioned by the noble Lord.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [River pollution]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.31 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION I do not want to say much about this clause, although by consent—and certainly my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has demonstrated the fact—the problem of river pollution is a highly important one. My restraint in the matter is due to the fact that the Government will, I understand, be introducing a comprehensive measure providing for stringent control over the discharge of effluents into our rivers and the disposal of toxic substances. However, I want to ask a question about the timing of the proposed measure which the Government have told us they arc to introduce.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, when he introduced this Water Bill in the other place, after mentioning the proposed provisions arising from the Jeger Report and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, said:
"Those provisions will be covered, together with other aspects of environmental pollution, such as waste disposal... in legislation which we would wish to introduce during the lifetime of this Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/2/73; col. 40.]
I cannot pretend to know how much longer this Parliament will continue: I think it ought to end at an early stroke; but it might go on until June, 1975. Subject to the Secretary of State's statement on Second Reading, Mr. Griffiths, the Under-Secretary for the Environment, said to an international congress in London on June 5:
"A Bill to be presented to Parliament possibly next Session would give regional water authorities full control of all tidal rivers, estuaries and of trade effluents to sewers."
This is—and I think we all admit it—a highly important and urgent matter. I should welcome a statement to-day by the noble Baroness on the timing of the proposed legislation.
The urgency of this matter is being highlighted at the moment by some searching articles by "Insight" in the Sunday Times. Perhaps I might briefly refer to these, because they are germane

887
to what I am saying. In one the writer says:
"A new peril has been discovered at Maendy quarry, the South Wales industrial tip which, as Insight reveared last week, contains at least 31 chemicals, half of them toxic to some degree. Last week as the Welsh Office sought to play down the dangers—Government scientists had already found another deadly chemical leaking from the tip…known as TOCP….TOCP was found in water from Maendy just over a week ago by analysts at the Water Pollution Research Laboratory at Stevenage. The laboratory, an agency of the Department for the Environment, has been testing Maendy discharges for some time. The TOCP the laboratory found was at concentrations of 'well over' 50 parts per million."
I know this quarry well; it is not far from my home. I know that it is 700 to 800 feet up, and inevitably water from it could flow down into the springs which feed the local rivers.
I do not expect the noble Baroness to comment on these articles, because I have not given her any real indication that I should be raising this in any depth, although I did advise her that I should be asking her something about the timing of the proposed legislation. I sincerely hope that she will be in a position to give us some information, which I certainly should like to have, and which I am fairly sure the Committee would like, too.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for giving me notice of his intention to raise these points on the Question, That the clause stand part. I can confirm that it is still the hope to introduce during the lifetime of this present Parliament new legislation on environmental pollution, but I cannot say anything further than that. The noble Lord mentioned in the course of his remarks the article in the Sunday Times and the case of Maendy Quarry in Glamorgan. I can confirm that powers to control new tipping of this kind—and this tipping occurred between 1965 and 1970—do exist in the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972 which makes it an offence to deposit poisonous wastes where they will endanger public health, and which provides for a system of notification to the county council of intention to tip substances under this Act.
Reverting to the proposed new legislation, I may say that it is intended that this will provide much more wide-rang
888
ing powers on environmental pollution. New tipping sites will have to be licensed by the wastes disposal authority, the county council, who would in this case consult the regional water authority. The wastes disposal authority will be able to attach conditions to the licence governing types of waste and the precautions to be taken to avoid pollution. It will have power to inspect sites and power to vary the conditions of the licence. There will also he provision for the determination of disputes between applicants for licences and the wastes disposal authority. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development recently announced in another place that the Department would be commissioning a new programme of research into substances percolating from tips. I hope that this goes some way to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): I just wish to add, on the subject of Maendy Quarry, that I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is aware that the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement in the other place last Monday in which he said:
"On the basis of an extensive series of tests, the best advice available to me is that there is no evidence to sugeest any immediate public health hazard from the situation at these quarries. There is no danger of contamination of public water supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons,11/6/73; col. 968.
He went on to say that he was keeping the matter under constant watch and he would immediately take action should he find any dangers. He also mentioned T.O.C.P., referred to by the noble Lord, and said that he had been told about this by a consultant only on the Friday; that investigations took place immediately, and that these would continue with the full services of the Government analysts and all Departments.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for making that statement. I must have been so busy preparing for this Committee that I missed the statement by the Secretary of State. I have only now been able to read last Monday's Lords Hansard because of the difficulty we have had in getting it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Very briefly, it was because I knew of the statement which had been made in another place and that I did not mention this. I do not wish to delay our proceedings and to make a meal of this local problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his statement. I am sure that both sides of the Committee and the officials of the House will take careful note of this. However, I must say that driving up here in my car I listened to an account from some official of how this matter was being looked into. I believe that he was "stonewalling"—I will put it kindly—a little too much. I know this is emotive, but it is something that I feel the Welsh ought to be emotional about.
I believe we shall have to look at this problem of chemicals. I must declare an interest in the chemical industry and I know the problem involved in the disposal of these waste products and the effluent from plastics. We must get a national policy on this disposal problem. It is all very well for somebody to say, "Throw this down some of your old Welsh coalpits in the Rhondda". It may be that the pit goes down 2,000 feet into the ground, yet it may still be 4,000 feet above sea level somewhere else, and fluids can drop into other parts of the country. I have now said enough. I do not know the answer to this problem and I do not want to sound pompous, but I believe we must try to find an answer to this modern problem of chemical effluents all over Britain.
Clause 17 agreed to.
6.42 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 17 insert the following new clause:
Arrangements for discharge of certain functions by Greater London Council.
".—(l) It shall be the duty of the Thames Water Authority and the Greater London Council to endeavour to make arrangements for the Greater London Council to discharge as respects the London excluded area the functions of that water authority under or in pursuance of the Water Resources Act 1963 and this Act for and in connection with—

(a) the determination and review of minimum acceptable flows for inland waters in that area;

(b) the control of the abstraction of water from or from the vicinity of, and the impounding of water in, such inland waters:

890

(c) the protection of such inland waters against pollution, and the control of discharges into underground strata in that area;

and for that council to discharge as respects the London excluded area or such larger area as may be agreed between the two authorities or determined by the Ministers such functions of that water authority under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961 as were exercisable by the Port of London Authority and the Greater London Council immediately before 1st April 1974 under Part VI (Prevention of Pollution) of the Port of London Act 1968.
(2) If within a period of two months beginning with the date on which consultations between the water authority and the said council were commenced for the purpose of making such arrangements as aforesaid the two authorities have not entered into the arrangements, the water authority or the council may within one month of the end of that period refer the matter to the Ministers and the Ministers shall in that event settle the terms of the arrangements which shall be binding on both parties.
(3) The parties to any arrangements in force by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (2) above, as varied (if it is the case) under this subsection, may by agreement vary the arrangements or, in default of agreement, either party (after giving notice in writing to the other party) may apply to the Ministers to vary the arrangements and the Ministers may in that event by direction to the parties vary the arrangements in a manner specified in the direction and such variation shall (subject to a further application of this subsection) be binding on the parties."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47. I moved a number of Amendments earlier, all of which were linked together and were intended to secure the retention by the Greater London Council of powers which they already possess, and to ensure for the Council powers which, as a water authority, they could well discharge with efficiency and economy. I had been hopeful that the Committee would have seen the good sense behind allowing the Greater London Council to do that and also that perhaps the Amendments would have been carried; but one had to anticipate that they would not be accepted. I want to make it quite clear that Amendment No. 47 is one that accepts the position that the Government are not prepared to do what I sought to achieve in the early stages of our proceedings in Committee.
This Amendment, which would introduce a new clause in the terms set out in the Marshalled List, would secure arrangements for the discharge of certain functions by the Greater London

891
Council which are nothing like as ambitious as those envisaged in the earlier Amendments. I hope that the same reason which prevailed when we were considering water authorities just now and the same kind of thinking that went on in the minds of a number of those who spoke might be brought to bear in connection with this Amendment. I should also like to think that the Government themselves would be big enough to see that, as I shall hope to show, there is a good reason behind this. May I say that there can be no question here of old-fashioned or reactionary thinking. I do not think the accusation was particularly fair before: it certainly was not accurate then, and I do not think it can have any application with regard to this Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide arrangements whereby certain functions of the Thames Water Authority may be discharged by the Greater London Council. Having regard to the unique situation existing in the London excluded area and the experience and capabilities of the Greater London Council, there is a very strong case indeed for doing this. It is of real importance to London that it should be done. This Bill provides for the Greater London Council to retain its functions as a land drainage authority for what is known as the London excluded area. This involves over 400 square miles, taking in a good proportion of Greater London and other areas outside it. It is not covered by any other river authority and it includes the catchments of the Rivers Brent, Crane, Ravensbourne and Wandle and the Beverley Brook. These are not large tributaries of the Thames but I think that many, if not all, of your Lordships will remember that there has been serious flooding in built-up areas through which these tributaries flow. The Greater London Council is generally responsible for tidal and other flood prevention and for the improvement of main metropolitan water courses. Those functions, as I understand it, will remain under this Bill. Unless the Bill is amended, certain important functions of river management will be discharged by the Thames Water Authority, but since the Council will have the land drainage function they feel themselves clearly in a position to undertake those river management functions
892
and thus avoid wasteful and unnecessary duplication of administration over the same streams.
The functions to which I have referred fall under two main heads: control over river flows, and prevention of river pollution. Under the Water Resources Act 1963, all river authorities have powers in connection with the establishment of minimum acceptable flows for inland water in their areas and the control of construction or alteration of impounding works on such waters. These bowers have never applied in the London excluded area, although tile Greater London Council have represented to Government Departments many times that they were necessary for dealing with land drainage and amenity responsibilities in relation to London streams. The Wandle Valley is a case in point. Anxiety has arisen from the progressive reduction of the River Wandle, which has resulted in the virtual drying up of Waddon Pond and the Croydon branch of the river since December 1972. If the river in this area does dry up, the lake in Beddington Park will be endangered and the whole environment will suffer, causing trees, shrubs and other plants to be very seriously affected. I have touched on these matters very briefly, but I trust I have said enough to show it is necessary for the G.L.C. to have powers to ensure certain minimum flows in London streams.
If I may now turn to the subject of pollution, the Port of London Authority are responsible for the prevention of river pollution as regards the tidal reaches of the Thames within their area. In this the Council's Scientific Branch assists by monitoring the condition of the rivers. As I indicated a few moments ago in connection with the previous Amendment, they will continue to monitor the condition of the river. The Council itself discharges the function of pollution prevention with regard to canals and non-tidal rivers in the 400-odd square miles of the London excluded area. I gather there is conjecture as to the Government's intentions in regard to the pollution powers of both the Port of London Authority and the Greater London Council. May I inquire from the Minister who is to reply whether the Government intend these powers to be transferred to the Thames Water Authority on April 1, 1974? If that is the case, it

893
would seem to make little sense. As I have indicated, the Council's staff will in any case have to patrol, inspect and maintain these rivers in the exercise of land drainage functions. It would clearly be nonsense if they lost the function of pollution control.
In so far as the new clause proposes that the Council should take over for the first time pollution control of the tidal Thames the arguments are somewhat different but equally strong. The tidal river is clearly not a possible source of water supply for drinking purposes, so the purposes of pollution control relate to the planned protection of the environment and to amenity and recreation, including the improvement of the river for the purposes of angling. These are clearly functions of the Council and not of the Thames Water Authority as the Government are already (following the proceedings in Standing Committee D in the House of Commons) publicly committed to conferring on the Council the amenity and recreation functions of the Thames Water Authority in Greater London.
It should also be pointed out that the new clause would permit arrangements to be made whereby, if it was thought right, the Council, instead of the Thames Water Authority, could exercise the pollution prevention functions now carried out by the Port of London Authority, not merely in London but right down the estuary well outside Greater London. As the Council's scientific branch at present monitors the condition of the river far out into the estuary, there would be no practical problems to the Council taking on this task.
I hope that I have demonstrated something of the strength of the case in support of this Amendment. The Greater London Council has lost a good deal of its original functions. May I remind the Committee—we ought not to forget it—that they are losing some 15 per cent. of their staff and half of their direct services to the people of Greater London.
If this Amendment is accepted, something will be done to secure services to the advantages of the people of London, and to the interests of London generally; they will be secured with economy, and, at the same time, I think it would go some way toward showing respect for and confidence in the largest unit of local government
894
in the country. There have been many tributes paid to local government from all sides of the House at many stages of these proceedings. There was acknowledgment from the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, that local government was feeling bruised. I sincerely hope that the merits of this Amendment will commend themselves to the Government and that they will be able to indicate their acceptance of it.
6.53 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I venture to intervene to support my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy in proposing the new clause at present before the Committee in order to supplement slightly what he has already said very amply and very cogently; and also for one subordinate reason. When my noble friend moved at the outset of your Lordships' debate that virtually the Thames River Authority might be subdivided, and the Greater London Council invested with the functions relating to London which tile Bill would transfer to the Thames River Authority, he was somewhat severely taken to task and told that his proposal was reactionary and unhelpful. The noble Lord who used that language to him did not include me in the condemnation, and I would feel rather conscience-stricken if I did not seek to come to my noble friend's support in this much more moderate proposal which he is now putting before the Committee, and which I hope is not reactionary or unhelpful.
In the case of the previous Amendment, my difficulty in addressing the Committee was that my noble friend had expounded the case admirably and fully; and he has again in that fashion expounded the case in respect to this Amendment. But perhaps it would not be wholly inapposite if I pointed to some features in his present proposal. The background of his proposal is his reluctance to see the direct functions performed by the Greater London Council diminish, as they would diminish if this Bill became law without qualification. He has indicated that it is that general feeling which has motivated him, in part at any rate, in making the proposals now being considered by the Committee. What I seek to add is a word on the moderate character of that which he is at present suggesting. I would point to the fact that all he is proposing is that the Thames Water

895
Authority should get together with the Greater London Council, and they should consider together a scheme for investing the Greater London Council with the duties which are set out in sub-paragraphs (a),(b) and (c) to his new clause which he has already explained in some detail.
The proposal goes on to require that if agreement cannot be reached the matter should go to the Minister. There should not be delay because a twomonths' time limit is set. The net result of that proposal, if it is accepted, surely is not unreasonable. I would go further: surely it is helpful. In spite of what has been said so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in an earlier discussion, there has been apprehension expressed about the rather mammoth size of the Thames Water Authority. This would slightly—perhaps more than slightly—go some distance to meet that criticism. It would provide a means whereby a sensible arrangement could be agreed between the two authorities in such a way as to be acceptable to both. Part of the function could remain with the Greater London Council.
It is a sensible division of labour, a division of labour which would retain the feature which at present is applicable; namely, that the expert staff available to the Greater London Council could again be made available for the purpose of the discharge of these three separate categories of function. That is surely to the good. Before we started discussing this Amendment, the noble Lord said that change for the sake of change is not necessarily desirable, and that is distinct in the suggestion which my noble friend made. Therefore all that is proposed is this: let these two authorities get together, let them come to some sensible agreement for a division of labour in a very limited field, as set out in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for which the Greater London Council is at present very well provided. It is well provided by its expert staff to discharge those functions. Limited in scope though they are, they are of great importance. They would to some extent counter the criticism which motivated my noble friend in moving the earlier set of Amendments. He now therefore returns to the same proposal—I emphasise, and cannot
896
emphasise too much—in a modified, highly practical and restrained form.
I ask Ministers to consider carefully whether there is not something really valuable in this new approach. It does not dismantle in any way the Thames Water Authority. On the contrary: it recognises that Authority as the overall authority which will still he a partner in this joint enterprise. It will work together with the Greater London Council in pursuance of arrangements which they have both worked out to their mutual satisfaction. That is what my noble friend has proposed. I hope if he is again said to be reactionary in this matter that I will be identified in spirit with his reactionary nature. I never thought he was a reactionary, and I still find it rather difficult to believe. I do not think I am. and I hope we may both survive this debate with our reputations in that regard not too damaged. I beg to support my noble friend.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I fear I must add just a word after listening to the persuasive advocacy cf the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who makes even the lightest substance carry great weight. I really do not think there is quite the substance in this argument that he was able to clothe it with by the skill of his words and dialectic. If we look at the three functions which he and his noble friend Lord Garnsworthy are advocating should be put in the hands of the G.L.C., we see that the first one, in paragraph (a), has not been carried out at all by anybody. Nobody had been able to do it yet, for a variety of good reasons, so that is not going to affect the G.L.C. staff. The second one, concerning the control of the abstraction of water, of course has not been carried out by the G.L.C. either; and "the protection of such inland waters against pollution" also has not been carried out by the G.L.C. but by the P.L.A. While I follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that this function might be given to the G.L.C. as a consolation prize because they have lost other functions which they valued—I take that point; I am sad to see any functions transferred from local government—I really do not think that these three particular functions—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I remind the noble Lord that I covered this point and acknowledged that nobody had had the powers, and I endeavoured to make a case, with brevity, as to why it was desirable that the G.L.C. should have them.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, did, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, spun a very skilful web which made the picture seem slightly different. I was dismantling the web he had so skilfully erected. Lord Garnsworthy related this, very cleverly I thought, to the G.L.C.'s recreational powers, saying it was most desirable that the prevention of pollution should be related to those powers. There is a connection, I would agree, but of course far the strongest connection is between the prevention of pollution powers and the sewage disposal function. This Committee decided on Monday, after the very interesting debate which the noble Lord promoted, that that should remain with the R.W.A.; that the whole logic of this Bill demanded that it should. That being so, there is no doubt at all that the body responsible for monitoring the control of pollution should be the same body, so that the general management of the sewage works—the whole function of reclamation—is in the same hands. So the whole logic of this issue is that these powers should remain with the regional water authority in so far as they are substantial—and they are certainly substantial in regard to paragraph (c)—but with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) I do not think they are very substantial. They certainly will not make any difference to the G.L.C. staff. So I hope my noble friend will find himself unable to accept this Amendment.
7.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I certainly acquit both noble Lords opposite of being anything other than good sound radicals, but I cannot say that their proposal is anything less than reactionary, though perhaps not quite so reactionary as their earlier proposal on Amendment No. 1. They are still clinging to the past instead of reaching forward into the future. I cannot say the proposal is anything like so reasonable or so practical as the skilled advocacy of the noble and learned
898
Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might have deceived some of us into thinking that it was. So I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to adopt this proposal, any more than the one incorporated in Amendment No. 1. I will endeavour to say why, without repeating more than is absolutely necessary what I said at the beginning of the Committee stage.
The main fact is that, like it or not, Greater London, or any area based closely on the Greater London area, is not a viable unit for the purposes of the future comprehensive management of water services. Those river management functions which have significantly been omitted from the present new clause are a good illustration of this. For instance. the augmentation of water in the underground strata under London would depend upon operations which have to be carried out someway outside in the Chilterns where the chalk aquifer is naturally replenished. Equally, the administration of fisheries and angling has to take place over a much wider area than the stretch of the tidal Thames which happens to lie within Greater London.
The Government, however, are content to see the responsibility for land drainage, for flood protection and for the great Thames flood barrier to remain with, and for the river recreation including angling and amenity be conferred upon, the Greater London Council. I shall be seeking to explain how the latter is to be done when I move Amendment No. 63C, later on this evening. They do this not because Greater London or the London excluded area, as the case may be, is the natural area for the exercise of these functions, but because these particular functions in the unique circumstances of Greater London—and I would entirely agree with Lord Garnsworthy that our capital city is unique in many ways—have sufficiently close ties with other local authority functions and can in the special circumstances reasonably easily be detached from the other water services, though on technical grounds it is not desirable to do so. That particular consideration does not apply to the further functions covered by the present new clause.
I must advise the Committee that to split off any further particular functions would go directly against the whole

899
principles of this reorganisation and seriously harm and jeopardise them. It is the Government's view that it is essential for the future for sewage disposal and pollution control to go together and go into the Thames Water Authority, which is where we have indicated right from the beginning in the original proposals for this reorganisation they should go; and exactly the same applies for water conservation and water supply. I would end by reiterating my own conviction that the future role of the G.L.C. and such of their staff as have been engaged in this field lies fairly and squarely in the Thames Water Authority, where they undoubtedly have a substantial contribution to make.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I much appreciate the rely of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, while not being too pleased at what it conveyed to us. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for his much appreciated support. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, comes in so often against the Greater London Council. I have endeavoured to represent to this Committee the anxiety of the Greater London Council in regard too what is being done in depriving it of powers it has discharged with efficiency and with economy. It really is a nonsense for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to suggest that the Greater London Council in its approach to this matter is being either old-fashioned or reactionary. He knows as well as I do that the attitude of the Greater London Council on this issue is not a question of Party politics. He knows as well as I do that if the outcome of the Greater London election had been different the request to this Committee of the kind of consideration that I have sought would have been the same, with this possible addition, that probably there would have been somebody on the other side, as there was in the case of the London Ambulance Service.
With regard to the suggestion that the proposal is reactionary, I venture to think—and I certainly hope—that the noble Lord will live long enough, and indeed I hope I shall live long enough (I do not think it will be a long period of time) to hear local government officers saying
900
that they are not prepared to be left out when it comes to being entrusted to the same extent that privately-owned water undertakings are being entrusted. The time will come when local government will say, "You have created these vast bodies; you have given us some representation on them; you may have given us a majority but you have taken jolly good care to see that control lies with the Department of the Environment, or the political head of that Department."
What is important is that the people of London should appreciate that, so far as the Greater London Council is concerned, it has endeavoured to preserve under public control as much as it can of the services in regard to water and sewerage functions. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that this is not only a matter of recreation; there is also the question of general amenity, and the instances I gave with regard to what is happening in the area of the Wandle I should have thought would be taken very seriously indeed. He has drawn attention to the fact that there has been no river authority in that area. I hope the debate will serve some purpose in that somebody will continue to think of the problems that concern London. In the circumstances of the debate I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I think now might be a convenient moment for me to move that the House be now resumed, on the understanding that we meet again to resolve ourselves into a Committee on this Bill at a quarter past eight. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House he now resumed.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act

901
1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Bahamas Independence Act;

Rate Rebate Act;

The Metals Society Act.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SALARIES (COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR - GENERAL AND OTHERS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
7.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD BELSTEAD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD BELSTEAD) rose to move, That the Draft Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor-General and Others) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 21, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is required to authorise an increase in salary for the holders of three posts in Northern Ireland and to provide for the authorisation of any future increases. Although three public offices are involved, those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Commissioner for Complaints, in fact only two people are involved because the posts of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Commissioner for Complaints are held jointly at present.
The Order proposes an increase of £1,500 for all three posts; that is, from £7,875 to £9,375 per annum, with effect from January 1, 1972. This increase, the new salaries and the effective date, are all the same as those implemented by administrative arrangement last summer for Permanent Secretaries in the Northern Ireland Civil Service following acceptance by the Government of the Report of the Top Salaries Review Body—the Boyle Report. As long ago as July of last year specific written assurances were given to the holders of the posts covered by this Order that similar increases would be paid with
902
effect from the same date as soon as the necessary Parliamentary approval had been obtained.
Before direct rule, such increases required a Resolution of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and but for Prorogation these increases would undoubtedly have been implemented about a year ago. As your Lordships will appreciate, direct rule was attended by constitutional complications and pressures on Parliamentary time which were sufficient to delay Parliamentary action on the contents of the Order until the late summer, when the breakdown in the tripartite talks on the economy led to the counter-inflation programme and an inevitable further brake on early action to authorise these increases. I can assure the House that the Order is in full accordance with the terms of the counter-inflation policy introduced by the Government last autumn. The relevant section is paragraph 13 of A Programme for Controlling Inflation: The First Stage (Cmnd. 5125), which states that in all cases where a settlement was reached before the standstill and the operative date for the increase was on or before November 6, 1972, the increase can be implemented.
Finally, the Order provides that future increases will be authorised by Order in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland after a draft has been approved by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. However, subject to Parliamentary approval when the new arrangements contained in the Constitution Bill which is now before another place are in force an Order would be made by the Secretary of State on a Resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are the terms of the Order. I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I think this is probably the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has spoken in his capacity as a Minister responsible for Northern Irish affairs and I should like to give him the warmest good wishes in his onerous responsibilities. He is following his noble friend Lord Windlesham, who quite clearly did a first-rate job there, and I can assure him that the House will be as sympathetic as possible in the light

903
of the special circumstances there. Certainly I speak with the knowledge of this "over-crowded" House, and I am sure that those of us who are present wish him all good fortune.
He has a slightly awkward little Order to introduce and one one which I think noble Lords who have not actually studied it, or have not heard the arguments, will be rather mystified. First, there is no doubt that these two gentlemen—and although they appear to be three, as the noble Lord has explained one of them holds two posts—are to receive an increase which is to be back-dated no less than 18 months, to January 1, 1972. I think I am right in saying that.
One wonders how this has come about. The noble Lord obviously was advised not to go into too much detail on this matter, and he gave us a brief and accurate but not fully satisfactory explanation. None the less, I followed very closely what he said, and since—and I hope that he will not take this amiss—his statement followed the statement made in another place even more closely than was usual with his predecessor (although I noticed that some subtle words had been inserted here and there which made the drafting a little different) I had the advantage more or less of knowing in advance what he was going to say. That is no criticism of him. I would say, however, first of all that I have no doubt that these two salary increases should be made and should be back-dated. Undoubtedly we owe gratitude to the holders of these posts in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland where inevitably judgment can be sensitive in its political effect, though I have no doubt that they judged them on merit and impartially. Having said that I have no doubt that these payments should be made, and as one of these gentlemen I believe is to retire at a not too distant date, this has a particular effect on his pension.
It is one of the unfortunate effects of delays in payments, whether it was the staging by the previous Government or the greater mess of the present Government—and I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Beistead, to comment on that—that with regard to Civil Service pay there is a real danger of officials losing
904
not merely the pay increase that they should have but losing for ever the benefit in their pension. Happily, in this case that is not to happen, except of course that since January, 1972 (and after all their pay is related to Civil Service pay and Civil Service pay is based on comparability) they are still likely to be at a disadvantage.
The noble Lord argued, as did his honourable friend in another place, that it was ail right to make these increases under paragraph 13 of the Government's programme for controlling inflation. I suppose that it is possible to say in law that in all cases where settlement was reached before the standstill and the operative date of the increase was on or before November 6, that that increase can be implemented. Since they were informed, with the wisdom of foresight, as to the Government's likely pay freeze that it would be backdated, I think that the noble Lord and the Government are perfectly right in interpreting a phrase which does not appear to be directed to this kind of situation, but none the less should in equity apply; and I do not quarrel, except that I would hardly use the word "settlement" in regard to a pay increase to two particular individuals at this kind of level. Let me make it clear, and I repeat again, that this is no reflection on the individuals but merely the slight tangle which the Government have got into with regard to their pay policy. This is not a matter with which the noble Lord need concern himself very much. These remarks seemed to me to be relevant in this context. As I say, I have no doubt that these increases should be made and that the recipients richly deserve to get them even though they are rather belated.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I just say "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He is a busy Member of your Lordships' House as Leader of the Opposition, with many other things to do, and he has taken time to reply to the moving of this Order this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for doing that. I am also aware that the co-operation between political Parties in both Houses has hitherto made the task of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that much lighter than it would otherwise have been.

905
I omitted to say when I moved the Order that one of the reasons for delay was that the Northern Ireland Advisory Commission studies all Orders which come to both Houses of Parliament. That was again another reason why we reached the time of the standstill on pay and prices, and of course it was then that standstill on pay and prices which led to the further delay in bringing the Order before Parliament. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having looked at the Order and for saying that he feels it should go through. I would bear out what he says about judgment being difficult for the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner for Complaints. There are two Reports extant for 1972 and they give one an idea of some of the difficulties involved in their offices.
Before I sit down perhaps it is worth saying that the Parliamentary Commissioner is giving very good value for money. He has now managed to see ahead as to what he thinks his workload will be, and I noticed from his Report that he has now reduced his staff by not very far off 50 per cent. from the time he began operations in 1969. I shall accept the invitation given by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and not comment on Civil Service pay. In this case this Order avoids the pension difficulty which the noble Lord rightly said that we might be heading towards. It is relevant to the pay and prices policy, and I hope that the House will now agree to pass this Order.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
7.28 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD rose to move, That the Draft Road Traffic (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 9, be approved. The noble Lord said: The main purpose of this Order is to bring the law more closely into line with that in Great Britain on a wide variety of miscellaneous matters, including several of some importance to road safety. The Order also proposes certain changes as the result of local government reorganisation.
In the field of driver licensing, the six county councils and the two county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry are at present the responsible licensing authorities. Following local government reorganisation on October I of this year, the local licensing authorities will cease to exist and Article 15 of the Order provides that the Ministry of Home Affairs will become the single licensing authority for the whole of Northern Ireland.
Local government reorganisation also has an effect on the organisation of road safety in Northern Ireland in so far as the existing permissive powers of local authorities to incur expenditure on road safety will cease to be appropriate. At present there are four full-time road safety officers currently employed by local authorities in Northern Ireland, and the aim is to try to expand the number of road safety officers in order to provide a comprehensive programme of road safety education and training throughout the Province. Towards this end the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland will assume direct responsibility for the road safety officer service and for the expenditure of road safety committees under Article 7. In this respect the position in Northern Ireland will be comparable with that in Great Britain when the new county authorities are given a statutory road safety duty.
Although road deaths for 1973 in Northern Ireland are down compared with the first four months of last year, the number of children killed has increased somewhat. There are, of course, a variety of ways in which road safety can be improved. I must say I hope that the raising of the school-leaving age is now going to provide an added opportunity to develop road care and driver training in schools. I would also, if I may, pay a tribute to the work carried out by the voluntary road safety movement in Northern Ireland, which has continued with its task in a spirit of community co-operation undeterred by all the troubles. Following local government reorganisation the road safety committees will continue to function, but in future they will be based on the 26 new district council areas and will provide a link with local government at that level. Each committee will in turn be represented on the Road Safety Council for

907
Northern Ireland, which corresponds to the Accident Federation in Great Britain.
My Lords, without keeping the House too long, perhaps I may turn for a moment from the structure of the Order to some of the detailed provisions. In Great Britain we do not take the view that epilepsy should necessarily be a reason for banning, a driver, provided that it is established that this condition is adequately controlled. However, in Northern Ireland the condition of epilepsy is an absolute bar to the granting of a driving licence. Article 3 will, therefore, enable regulations to be made to enable a driving licence to be granted to a person suffering from epilepsy, with controls similar to those in Great Britain, which will be prescribed in regulations.
In the field of vehicle inspecton, which takes up several pages of the Order, the present position is that Northern Ireland has schemes in operation which provide for the annual inspection of goods vehicles and public service vehicles, but there is no scheme in existence for the annual testing of private cars. Many of the cars currently used on the roads in Northern Ireland are clearly not in sound mechanical condition, and it is possible that some of them ought not to be allowed on the road at all.
Article 4 therefore provides for the introduction of a scheme of annual inspection for private cars to be carried out in Government inspection centres. This will be a comprehensive examination of the vehicle carried out by an independent and impartial Government examiner. Initially it is proposed that the scheme will apply to cars over 10 years old, but the Order permits the scheme to be extended progressively down through the age range. In addition to providing for annual inspections, the Order also extends the powers for authorised officers to carry out roadside checks of all vehicles in all age groups, and provides for the issue of prohibition notices in respect of vehicles which are so defective as to constitute an immediate risk to public saftely.
In Great Britain the powers of traffic wardens have already been extended to enable them to carry out additional duties, and in this respect Article 6 pro
908
vides for a similar extension of powers in Northern Ireland. This will, of course enable the traffic warden service to carry out additional duties and to relieve the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Article 5 of the Order extends the existing powers to regulate drivers' hours. Your Lordships may recall the lengthy debates we had in 1968 on Part VI of the previous Government's Transport Bill, during which fears were expressed about the practical difficulties of reducing drivers' hours. However, the Regulations for Northern Ireland are slightly more generous than those in Great Britain, and both sets of Regulations will need to be modified for the E.E.C. Regulations after 1976. What the Order does is to give powers with respect to drivers' hours which may well be needed by 1976 for Northern Ireland.
Finally, Article 8 of the Order will enable Northern Ireland to follow suit with Great Britain by providing for the compulsory registration of professional driving insructors. At present, although standards required of an instructor for registration as an approved driving instructor are the same as in Great Britain, the Northern Ireland scheme is still voluntary. Compulsory registration will not preclude the giving of free driving lessons or practice by a friend or relative, but professional instructors giving driving lessons for payment will be required to maintain the high standards required of an approved instructor. The object of this scheme is to raise the standard of driving instruction in the interests of road safety, and at the same time to provide a measure of consumer protection for the public.
This is a lengthy and detailed Order to which, I am sure, this House would wish to give detailed attention if it were presented in the form of a Bill. However, it has been studied with care by the Secretary of State's Advisory Commission. It contains provisions which are urgent for the good of road safety in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the House will agree that it should be passed and become effective as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Road Traffic (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 9, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we strongly support this Order and welcome its introduction. It has been increasingly the practice that we have followed from this side of the House on these rather technical Orders to call in a spokesman who is particularly concerned in that partiscular area, but unfortunately those of my noble friends who are expert on road traffic and transport matters have been otherwise engaged. At least the noble Lord, Lord Belstead and I probably start equal in this subject in not originally knowing very much about it. He has given us a very clear explanation.
Studying comments made elsewhere, it appears that this Order is even more necessary than it was at one time. I understand that the standard of driving may well have deteriorated, and the police and the authorities have naturally been much involved in other matters and have been able to devote less time to controlling and policing road traffic performance. Certainly when one looks at the casualties in Northern Ireland resulting from road traffic accidents they are rather horrifying. It is a commentary on the extraordinary indifference that we all show to road traffic accidents that whereas none of us would do other than express horror when a bomb goes off and somebody is injured, many more people are killed at the weekends on our roads—and I gather that in Northern Ireland the figure is proportionately the same. Therefore, anything this Order can do must be welcome. Indeed it is clear—and I do not wish to say this critically in the Northern Ireland situation—that some of the provisions in the Great Britain Act might well, desirably, have been introduced a good deal earlier. Take the matter of car testing. As I understand it, there is one quite important difference (and I must admit that I pick up my information partly by reading what is said in another place) in that testing is to be done by public authorities and the private garages will not themselves be doing the road testing.
Again, I wondered what the noble Lord meant when he said that hours were a bit more generous with regard to drivers in Northern Ireland. It crossed my mind, "Generous to whom?" Generous to the driver in shortening his hours or generous to the employer or those who benefit from his services? I take it that
910
he means that drivers have more scope for driving longer hours, and I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that this matter is being tightened up. It is worth noting that one of the benefits of entering the European Community—and the fact that there are so few of my noble friends present is not the reason why I am emboldened to say a word in favour of it—is that we shall hope to bring ourselves into line with what I understand is the more civilised approach of the Cornmunity with regard to length of drivers' hours.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, recognised that in other circumstances this would have been a Bill. On the other hand, one is bound to say that, much as my conscience has smitten me in regard to the lack of consideration we have given to Northern Ireland business, one does note sometimes, despite the enthusiasm of Scottish noble Lords, that Bills that parallel closely United Kingdom Bills, unless there is some particularly Scottish point, tend to proceed rather more rapidly than do United Kingdom Bills. Certainly it is worth mentioning for those who may forget the extent to which the Government have sought to make efforts at proper scrutiny, that, as the noble Lord explained, this proposal will have been through the Advisory Committee. In passing, I wonder whether, at some stage, one could know a little more about the work of the Advisory Committee. It has been explained to us, and occasionally we have even asked a question about their proceedings. I do not ask the noble Lord to make any promise now, but it is rather interesting that there is this extra Parliamentary scrutiny.
I apologise for branching so widely, conscious, as I am, of the growing inability of Parliament to provide as effective a scrutiny as we should like over a great deal of matters that directly concern ourselves. In regard to the European Community we are to have a debate, but we still are in a position where there is a great flood of Orders which none of us is examining. We get Papers on them, but I wonder how many Papers noble Lords read and see what they are about. I do not want to branch into that wider issue, but I should be interested if, at some time, the noble Lord's right honourable friend, if he has not done so

911
already, would consider giving some sort of a report on the workings of the Advisory Committee, which is something that has been designed to help fill in the gap until such time as presumably the Assembly will have certain further powers transferred back to it. I apologise to noble Lords for making those rather wider comments. There is no doubt that this is an Order that we should welcome. It will be to the definite benefit of people in Northern Ireland, and the sooner it comes into force the sooner lives will be saved.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for what he has said, because he has thrown some more light on different parts of what is indeed a very long and complicated Order. The noble Lord referred to safety on the roads in Northern Ireland, and he is absolutely right when he indicates that the numbers killed on the roads there are unacceptable, as indeed they are in most European countries. My honourable friend, in moving this Order in another place, pointed out that in the last three years more people had been killed on the roads in Northern Ireland than had died owing to the disturbances.
I would not like to let this Order pass and give a wrong impression, however, about vehicle testing, to which both the noble Lord and I have linked many of our remarks in the last few minutes. In some ways I think that Northern Ireland has led this country in vehicle testing. For many more years they have tested both passenger service vehicles and goods vehicles. Certainly they tested goods vehicles back in the early 1930s. In Northern Ireland they have not had compulsory testing for cars, and that is what this Order now provides. It will be at centres, of which there will be fifteen initially, and it will be up to the Government, or to the relevant Ministry, to see whether the centres should be increased in number. There will be one great advantage over this country—and I must admit this—in that it will mean that there will be continuity between one centre and another as to the way the tests are carried out. This is because in Northern Ireland they will be able to do this from centres, and instead of
912
saying that the test will refer to particular aspects of car safety, such as steering, brakes, and so on, it is clearly put into the Order that these will be "general tests". Therefore, I submit to the House that the tests will probably be more comprehensive than perhaps we find at the moment in this country, and they are more likely to be consistent. In saying that, I am in no way making any reflection on the garages which do the tests in this country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps this is the first fruits of that powerful debate we had yesterday on socialism.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the limits on driving hours are more generous, in that they provide for 11 hours at the wheel of a vehicle in Northern Ireland and, as the noble Lord correctly divined, a lesser time in this country. Both Northern Ireland and Great Britain will, however, have to keep an eye on 1976, when the relevant E.E.C. regulation will come into force, and we have agreed that we will abide by it. This Order will certainly allow Northern Ireland to do that. May I finally say that I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the noble Lord's remarks about the work of the Advisory Committee. If I am able to do so, I will certainly see that either I, or my right honourable friend, writes to the noble Lord on that matter. With that, I hope that the House will agree to the passage of this Order.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.47 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

WATER BILL
8.17 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair]
Clause 19 [Land drainage]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 47A.
Page 24, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
("(4A) Land drainage functions relating to the London excluded area shall continue to be exercised by the Greater London Council and other authorities by whom they are exercisable immediately before the passing of this Act, and in accordance with the enactments by virtue of which they are exercisable, but Part IV of Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of their exercise.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is almost drafting, in so far as the words which will be substituted serve to make abundantly clear—more so than do the words which are removed—that the land drainage functions, which are at present exercised by the Greater London Council, will continue to be exercised by them in perpetuity. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I suppose that one ought to acknowledge the grand gesture of the Government, if I am not taken too seriously in referring to it in that way. But it is appreciated that this matter is being treated in the way that was promised.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 25, line 2, after ("that") insert ("sections 1 and lA of the Land Drainage Act 1961 (general drainage charges) and").
The noble Earl said: If I may speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51, because they are all linked together, their purpose it again to make much clearer than the Bill at present does the effect of a charges option order when it comes into force. This is, in fact, almost solely drafting. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 50.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 3, at end insert ("and shall thereupon be treated for the purposes of section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) as if they had been repealed in relation to that area by another Act.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.—member(Earl Ferrers.)
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 51A:
After Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
Provision for maintaining and developing sonic inland waterways for freight carrying
".Without prejudice to any powers which may be transferred in accordance with Section 8 of this Act, a water authority may maintain and develop for freight carrying vessels an inland waterway for which it is the navigation authority."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. In so doing, I should apologise to the Committee on behalf of my noble friend who has been called away. This Amendment seeks to clarify the purpose of water authorities, particularly in regard to the maintenance and development of river navigation for the carriage of freight. It is my understanding that, under an earlier clause, authorities have a duty to promote the use of waterways for all kinds of navigation, but there appears to be some doubt that their powers as set out in the Bill are sufficiently explicit for them to carry out their functions where freight carrying is concerned. It is the purpose of this Amendment to provide for their ability to look after this activity, which could well be of growing importance. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: In considering this Amendment, I think it best to begin by setting out the aims of the Bill, which are two-fold. First of all, it provides a new structure of water authorities; and, secondly, it transfers a number of existing powers to water authorities. Among those existing powers, the new authorities will inherit from existing river authorities statutory navigation responsibilities in respect of some 510 miles of river. These existing statutory navigation responsibilities derive from various local enactments, many of them old, governing particular stretches of the river concerned. The new clause which my noble friend Lord Lucas has moved would remove

915
any doubt that there may be by giving water authorities clear powers to maintain and develop these 510 miles of river for freight-carrying. The Government would not wish in any way to be discouraging about freight-carrying on inland waterways but, as I understand it, the difficulty is that it is intended in the present Water Bill simply to transfer existing powers and not to add to them, which is what this Amendment would do. As a result of this, we consider that we are not able to accept this Amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will rest assured that all the existing powers are transferred to the new water authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her reply. Your Lordships will perhaps recognise some of the inadequacies with which I am faced. It would appear, however, that in transferring the existing powers we can make no provision for an element of improvement, and it was the thought of my noble friend in setting down this Amendment that, through it, the Bill would provide the opportunity for improving that which already exists. He will be somewhat disappointed in that the Government do not feel able to add such an improvement to the powers which are contained in the Bill. However, it would not be my wish to pursue the matter unduly, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Recreation]:
8.26 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 25. line 29, at end insert:—
("Provided that every water authority and all statutory water undertakers shall so discharge their duty under this subsection as to have due regard to the duty of the water authority under section 10 above to supply wholesome water in their area.").
The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will appreciate my personal support for any steps that lead to an encouragement of the provision of amenities. I think that was indicated by an Amendment that I moved early on in the Committee stage. So, naturally, I give full support to the proposals which are inherent in this clause. According to the clause, water undertakings have a
916
duty to take such steps "as are reasonably practicable" to make water space and associated land available for recreation; but the overriding duty is to provide wholesome water. In another place an Amendment similar to my own was tabled, but in his reply I think the Minister missed the essential point of the Amendment. The Minister said (if I may paraphrase) that water authorities' duties would extend beyond mere water supply and would cover the whole of the water cycle. That, of course, is true. He said it was impossible to segregate and wrong to separate one duty from another.
Now it is true that the provision of what the Bill describes as wholesome water is but one function, but the fact is that it is the most important function. I think one must appreciate that it is possible to neglect drainage without an immediate risk to life and health, but that is not so in the case of water. Therefore, this Amendment merely underlines the priorities of responsibility. It does not detract one iota from recognition of the necessity for the authorities to provide adequate amenities, but it makes crystal clear to both the public and to the authorities that, while that prevision is important and must be recognised, the overwhelming and overriding responsibility is that of the provision of wholesome water. I therefore recommend this Amendment to the Committee, and I hope the noble Baroness opposite will be willing to accept it, because I think it would strengthen the clause. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I would say in answer to the noble Lord that a reconciliation of all these purposes rather than talk of overriding priorities is the underlying philosophy in the Bill before us. The water authorities will have statutory duties relating to a far wider ranee of functions than hitherto: water supply—I certainly put it first—sewerage and sewage disposal, prevention of pollution, land drainage, fisheries, navigation, recreation and amenity. Now these will interrelate at many points, and it will be the job of the regional water authorities to decide how they should be reconciled. This is what the comprehensive management of the whole water cycle is all about, and it is the Government's main reason for setting up the

917
regional water authorities responsible for discharging this whole range of functions.
For that reason, we believe it is undesirable to single out in the Bill one particular function to be given what the noble Lord calls overriding priority, even though we would agree with him that it is the basic one. To do this would, I think, cast a doubt on the relationship between it and the other functions as they are now envisaged. So, while taking the point that the noble Lord is making to the extent of agreeing that the supply of water is a basic purpose, we believe that the matter is best left to the water authorities to determine in the circumstances of each case, and with particular reference to Clause 10 where the noble Lord will see that water supply is rated high, as it should be, in the category of functions to be fulfilled. In considering the recreational developments which are given new prominence they will have to take all their other relevant statutory functions into account, including that in Clause 10.
It is misleading to imply, as the Amendment might be taken to imply, that there is an inevitable clash between recreation and water supply in the sense that it was believed, and is still believed in some quarters, that it is not possible to have a water supply reservoir with any recreation going on in it or near it. I think the Committee will agree, and I hope the noble Lord will agree, that we have moved a long way from the days when every reservoir catchment was totally forbidden territory; the development of the regulating reservoirs has facilitated this. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the philosophy that we are stressing is now the right one to adopt and that the prominence, importance and basic indispensability of water supply is recognised without his Amendment and that he will not feel it necessary to press it.
LORD PEDDIE: I am encouraged by the noble Lord's comment that the provision of water is the major activity. I think he made that clear in his reply. I accept that a wide variety of functions are involved, so long as the major activity is made crystal clear as it was in the course of his reply. I hope this will be borne in mind constantly by the authorities who will have responsibility
918
for judging the extent to which the provision of amenities should be made available. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 52B:
Page 25, line 41, at end insert:
("(3A) In exercising their functions under subsection (1) or (3) above a water authority shall not obstruct or otherwise interfere with navigation which is subject to the control of a harbour or navigation authority without the consent of the harbour or navigation authority.
In this subsection "harbour authority" has the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964 and "navigation authority" has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1963.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes clear that a water authority exercising its function with regard to recreation shall not interfere with navigation controlled by another authority without the agreement of that authority. There are already safeguards of this kind with respect to water authority functions other than recreation. This Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my honourable friend in another place at an earlier stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY moved Amendment No. 52C:
Page 25, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may, where he is satisfied that it will assist the exercise by a water authority of their functions under this section, make an Order under section 82 of the Water Resources Act 1963 (for the transfer of functions and property of a navigation authority, conservancy authority, or harbour authority):—

(a) in relation to any waterway where at any time any body has exercised functions to facilitate navigation, notwithstanding that the exercise of such functions may have ceased through any cause other than a provision by virtue of any statute or an order of any court requiring that it should cease;

(b) so as to give the water authority such rights, powers and obligations for the improvement and maintenance of the waterway and the facilities for public access along it as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, having regard to the rights, powers and obligations of water authorities in respect of other water where they exercise the functions of navigation authorities.

Provided that no new right over land shall be created by an order made in pursuance of this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has to do with navigation, a subject which appears to be nearly as complex as land drainage. There are, it seems, certain river authorities to-day with navigation responsibilities and powers. There are many without any. The object of this Amendment is, first, to extend these existing navigation powers to river authorities, even if they are defunct; and, secondly, to improve them. This needs to be done. This Amendment is a simple way of effecting it. If the Government do not like the drafting, let them put down their own draft at Report stage; but let us hear that they are willing to agree that in principle this must be done now in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the Amendment by saying that we agree that, broadly speaking, something on these lines is needed. One must apologise for not being in a position yet to propose the precise form of Amendment that would commend itself to the Government, but I am glad to confirm that we have the matter in hand and hope to be able to bring forward an Amendment at Report stage which will meet the case. I hope, with that undertaking, that the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and anybody here who may be intending to move Amendment No. 57B on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DE RAMSEY: I thank the noble Lord for his statement and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.36 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 26, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("the Welsh")
The noble Baroness said: It will be to the general convenience to consider Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 together, because what we seek to do in this Amendment is to transpose the responsibility in subsection (5) of this clause. This is an Amendment of considerable importance in the Principality. I should like briefly to explain to these who may not be familiar with the arrangements proposed for Wales why it is that we are concerned about it.
Your Lordships will recall that when we were discussing the Amendment concerned with the Severn-Trent authority it was made plain that the Upper Severn catchment area which lies in Montgomeryshire would be, in general, in the charge of the Severn-Trent authority and not under the supervision of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. It was realised by the Government, as the preceding subsection (4) and the subsequent subsections (6) and (7) make plain in this clause, that it would not be acceptable in Wales if the Severn-Trent authority were made entirely responsible for recreation and amenity provisions in Montgomeryshire or what will be the new county of Powys. Therefore this rather complicated arrangement was proposed, that the Welsh authority, after consultation with the Severn-Trent authority, should prepare recreational plans for the whole of Wales including the Severn catchment. That is entirely satisfactory to us. It was also made clear that it would be the Welsh authority who would he empowered to acquire land and so on for the purpose of recreation connected with water throughout the Principality, including the area otherwise administered by the Severn-Trent authority.
So far, so good. But when we come to subsection (5), to which these two Amendments refer, we are told that any such plan for the promotion of recreation connected with water, in so far as it falls to be carried out in the area of the Severn-Trent Authority shall be carried out by that authority in accordance with the scheme agreed to by them and the Welsh authority or, in default of agreement, in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State. With that we do not quarrel. We cannot see the sense of this. If the Welsh authority is allowed to go as far as it is in making all plans and acquiring land et cetera, we cannot see why it cannot proceed also to carry out those plans, provided they were agreed with the Severn-Trent authority which has the overriding responsibility for the management of the Upper Severn catchment and which plainly would not agree with any provision which conflicted with its primary duties as the senior authority in the area, so to speak, for all purposes other than recreation.
I will refer in a moment to some extremely obscure and ambiguous remarks on this subject made in another place by the Minister of State for Wales, Mr. Gibson-Watt, in the proceedings in Standing Committee D from which, frankly, I could not understand what it was that the Government had in mind. Before I turn to Mr. Gibson-Watt's remarks I will explain further why it is that we are so anxious that this should be an entirely Welsh undertaking—with always the authority and consent of the Severn-Trent people. In Wales we have our own Sports Council and we have our Welsh Statutory Committee on the Countryside Commission. We have our own Welsh Tourist Board, and these, together with the local authority, the new County of Powys and possibly any elected regional council which may be forthcoming ultimately under the Kilbrandon proposals—will all be the people concerned with life in mid-Wales. They will want to see how things are going and whether the schemes are working satisfactorily; whether the local people are happy about them and whether there is any conflict between the innumerable visitors who come to our beauty spots and the local people. I am not now speaking of any other aspect of water management or control. Despite the various pleas that have been put forward about local democracy and so forth, I agree that for the most part the management of water is a technological function. But when you come to amenity and recreation it is after all a human and a local function. Therefore one's relationship with the local community is of overriding importance.
Were we living in the old days, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—very rightly I thought—emphasised, the position might be different. In the old days, when water went directly from the reservoir into the pipe and into the tap, so to speak, one had to be extremely careful about what happened in the surroundings and on the surface of the reservoir. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will reply for the Government, and I am quite sure that he is not living in the old days and will not put forward any such nonsensical argument. Knowing the Upper Severn catchment as I do—I live very close to it: I live actually in the Dyfed catchment, but I am very close to Clywedog, and so forth—I cannot conceive,
922
and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will agree with me, that in the Upper Severn catchment we shall ever again have the kind of reservoir that we have in the Elan Valley, where the water is pumped direct to Birmingham. They do not do that any more; it is absolutely "old hat". The Severn is now used as the pipe, the river is the conduit. The Clywedog is a regulating reservoir. The quantity of water going into We Severn is regulated from the Clywedog reservoir and would, I am certain, be so regulated in any other reservoir which might be constructed in the future in the Upper Severn catchment. There would be no water in the Upper Severn catchment going straight to the consumer, and so there is no question of the Severn-Trent Authority having to be on the spot as guardians of the purity of the water. It is absolute nonsense.
The Clywedog reservoir, which I know very well, has its boating and fishing and all that, and people are allowed to wander all round it, as I do. The actual purification of the water takes place miles away, hundreds of miles away so far as the Severn is concerned, and not on the spot. The only people who might drink the Severn water would be in Montgomeryshire, and much of their water conies from the shale-bearing areas adjacent to the Severn and not from the river. But I must not go into technical details of that sort.
All I am trying to make plain is that, in my view, it is not necessary for the Severn-Trent Authority to be responsible for the execution of the plan, provided that the plan is fully agreed in detail; and if it is desired that the Severn-Trent Authority should have some authority if things go wrong to appeal to the Secretary of State, this is provided for. If they are in disagreement with the Welsh Authority the Secretary of State can issue a direction. There is a good safeguard and a good appeal to the Secretary of State if, by any chance, the Welsh Authority proposed something which the Severn-Trent Authority felt was detrimental to the carrying out of their overriding duty regarding the supply of water. I can assure the Committee that this will make a great deal of difference in Wales. This is not one of the great tourist areas it is not, for example, like Snowdonia in the pressure of visitors at the moment.

923
But it is an important and developing area, and there is no part of Wales which is more sensitive politically on this matter of water than the Upper Severn catchment.
Clywedog dam was bombed and we do not want—I am serious about this—to encourage any forces of this kind, or to give any sort of excuses for the kind of trouble which can be caused. I am happy to say that we have not had any trouble for the last two or three years. But when I was Minister of State I went to see Clywedog when explosives had been discharged which damaged the dam. Fortunately, it was before the darn had been entirely completed and there was no flooding. This is a matter which is not to be entirely overlooked. One does not wish to give any sort of excuse to any people who may wish to express themselves in this way. Therefore it appears to me that it would be entirely proper to reverse the responsibility in subsection (5) and give the Severn-Trent Authority the privilege, if you like to call it so, of approving or disapproving the scheme; and if there is disagreement, there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, but then the Welsh Authority would carry through the entire business. The Welsh Authority already has the planning and the ownership of the land required for such purpose. Why, therefore, cannot it also have the management? To us in Wales this makes complete sense. With modern methods of reservoir management—and I stress the term "modern methods" because this would not have been true 20 or 30 years ago but it is now—I do not believe that there is any reason for conflict with the duties of the authority.
In conclusion, may I turn to the comments of Mr. Gibson-Watt which, as I say, I do not understand. As he is a Minister I Presume that I may quote him. I quote from col. 157 of the Committee's Report of March 1—St. David's Day, as it so happens—and it is in reference to recreation and amenity provisions. Having described the general pattern, Mr. Gibson-Watt went on to say:
"To say that those who will be running this executively—"
that is, executing the plan—
"will be people who live at Scunthorpe is totally wrong. What will happen is that on the
924
spot these important amenity activities will be run by local people."
But we have no guarantee whatsoever anywhere in the Bill that they will be run by local people. There is nothing in the Bill which puts any duty on the Severn-Trent Authority to employ local people to carry out the schemes, and therefore I cannot see what authority Mr. Gibson-Watt had for making such remarks which are completely unsubstantiated. When he was pressed by other members of the Committee who, not being Ministers, I must not quote, he was driven to the fallback position, in which lie said:
"I give the advice now to the Severn-Trent Authority that those who should actually administer and arrange matters on the spot"—
with the agreement of the Authority—
"should be people Aho well know the area."
That is a very different thing. This is a middle Minister at the Welsh Office giving advise to the great Severn-Trent Authority. Are they going to pay the slightest attention to something that he happened to say in Committee D if there is nothing in the Bill? Frankly, I do not think they will. Why should they? Therefore, with the greatest respect to Mr. Gibson-Watt (and I have quite an affection for him), I do not believe that he was entitled to say, as he did, that what will happen is that on the spot these important amenity activities will be run by local people. I do not think he had any right to say that. I do not see how he could possibly substantiate it. I do not see that there is any guarantee that it will happen. I believe, therefore, that the Amendments that my noble friend Lord Champion and I have put down—and my noble friend also knows this area, though not quite so well as I do—are right. We submit that the only safeguard that would be adequate would be to put the primary authority for execution on the Welsh body and the supervision of it on the Severn-Trent Authority. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like, quite shortly, to support the main contention that the noble Baroness made in her speech. Coming as I do from the English side of the Welsh Border, ail my experience and instinct tells me that unless there is strong reason indeed to suggest the contrary. any recreations that are to happen in Wales are very much better managed by the Welsh.
8.52 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I have a great affection for the noble Baroness opposite and for my noble friend, to whom I am slightly related, who has just supported her. I also have a great affection for Wales and am naturally predisposed towards this Amendment, but I must say, having gone into it very carefully, that the logic lies in the Government's proposals. I take it that we are at one on the planning proposals and I do not need to touch on those; it is simply a matter of who should manage the recreational use of the water in the Upper Severn basin and part of the area of the Severn-Trent Authority.
The noble Baroness made great play with Clywedog; but Clywedog is not the only reservoir in this area. There is also Lake Vyrnwy, which she did not mention. She said emphatically that it was "old hat" and old fashioned (I suppose I shall be called "fuddy duddy" again) to take water from a reservoir in pipes to its destination; but that is what happens at Lake Vyrnwy. Lake Vyrnwy is a direct-supply reservoir for Liverpool Corporation, and the water goes straight from Lake Vyrnwy to Liverpool in pipes. It is for that very reason that it would be quite wrong if the Severn-Trent Authority, who are responsible for the delivery of what I think is called potable water to Liverpool, were not in charge of the water in Lake Vyrnwy and the recreational use of it, because quite easily recreational use can lead to pollution, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge. It would be impossible, I think, to lay the responsibility on the Severn-Trent Authority to supply clean water to Liverpool and at the same time not allow them to manage and look after the recreational facilities on Lake Vyrnwy.
So far as Clywedog is concerned, I think the same applies. Although I recognise that this is a regulating reservoir, at the same time, water is drawn off from the River Severn to supply Birmingham, Gloucester, Bristol and many other places.
BARONESS WHITE: Much lower down.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not think it fair that one should say to a water authority: "You are responsible for the production of clean water to many important cities in England", and at the same
926
time that another authority should have the responsibility for recreational facilities on those waters. After all, it is not only in the reservoir but on the waters, too. It seems to me absolutely logical and right that the management and responsibility for clean water should rest with one authority. I say that with sympathy for those who speak on behalf of Wales, naturally, but I am convinced that it would be quite wrong to separate these two responsibilities.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry about this, but surely the noble Lord can appreciate that, so far as Vyrnwy is concerned —which I agree is a direct abstraction reservoir—all the Severn-Trent Authority have to do is to say: "Sorry, but you cannot have that scheme here, because that is an old reservoir; it is a piped reservoir and not a regulating reservoir". The Severn-Trent Authority have the right of veto.
LORD ABERDARE: No.
BARONESS WHITE: They could have. They have to agree to the scheme.
LORD ABERDARE: No; that is not correct. The Welsh Authority put up the plan in conjunction with the Severn-Trent Authority, and if there is disagreement it is the Secretary of State for Wales who has the final word.
BARONESS WHITE: Yes; quite so. But what we are suggesting is that the Welsh Authority should have the power to run the scheme, but a scheme agreed upon between them and the Severn-Trent Authority, and only in default of agreement will the Secretary of State be appealed to. The normal procedure would be that any scheme would have to be agreed upon with the Severn-Trent Authority. The Severn-Trent Authority would therefore say about Vyrnwy: "We are sorry, but this is not a place where you can carry out much recreation provision. It is not suitable. It is one of the old-fashioned reservoirs where there is a strict limit to the kind of recreational provision that could be carried out." I think that is true.
LORD ABERDARE: It is not exactly the type of recreation, because whatever sort of recreation takes place, pollution can occur. Human beings can cause pollution. You could say, "We will allow fishing"; but a fisherman could

927
cause pollution if he was careless in the way he acted. Somebody has to be running that reservoir who can stop that kind of thing from happening.
BARONESS WHITE: I still think that arrangements can perfectly well be made between the two authorities for that. I agree that Vyrnwy is much more sensitive than Clywedog because it is old-fashioned. Clywedog itself, and any new reservoir, would be a regulating reservoir, where the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would, in my submission, have no force at ail. To talk about what happens to the people in Gloucester, for example, for anything which could be done in Montgomeryshire is really quite irrelevant, because the water sup? plied in the taps of the city of Gloucester has gone many miles from Montgomeryshire before it is treated in such a way that it is suitable for drinking purposes. That is not done in Montgomeryshire; it is done far lower down the river. As I say, this applies to all the abstractions from the Severn. There is a tremendous amount of abstraction from the Severn, and then the water is treated and goes hack into the Severn and so on: there is a cycling that goes on the whole length of the river.
I grant the noble Lord a certain validity in his argument about Vyrnwy, but, as I say, I believe that could be dealt with by the Severn-Trent people's simply not agreeing to a scheme which did not give them adequate supervisory powers, if that is what they want. They would then Le part of the scheme. But the politics of this—and this is serious—is that in any new scheme it should be the Welsh Authority which should have the real say, I would have said, in running Clywedog as well as Vyrnwy, but, for the reasons put forward, it may well be that the scheme agreed upon for Vynrwy would need to contain some special provision. I think it is far better to do it in that way: to have the Welsh Authority as the executive as well as the planning authority, with the consent of the Severn-Trent people. If the Severn-Trent Authority felt that the more sensitive situation in Vyrnwy was such that they wanted a different type of scheme, I cannot believe that in those circumstances the Welsh Authority would be obstructive—and if they were the Severn
928
Trent Authority has a remedy in going to the Secretary of State and making its case. It is far better not to base the whole thing on what might happen in the case of a very old reservoir like Vyrnwy, where I believe perfectly suitable safeguards could be arranged—in other words, to take Vyrnwy as the pattern (in the Platonic sense) of the whole of the Upper Severn catchment. It is the wrong balance: you are making the lesser govern the greater cause, and this seems to me to be unstatesmanlike.
I think the technical arguments can be met within our proposition and that full safeguards can be agreed, since the Secretary of State has the over-riding power in any case. I do not think the Welsh Authority would be unreasonable over Vyrnwy. Vyrnwy is not one of the places on the whole which arouses political problems. Undoubtedly new reservoirs would; and I am really trying to safeguard the future. Water is the most inflammable substance in Welsh political life and it is just foolish not to recognise that. I am pleading with the Minister because I have to live with this perhaps more closely than he does. I was delighted to have support from the Shropshire side of the Border, because our Shropshire friends are close enough to know what goes on in Mid-Wales. We are merely asking the Government to show some statesmanship about this. I am quite sure that the technical anxieties about Chilworth water can be dealt with by agreement. I do not think that will stand in the way of what I am asking for, which is that the recreational and amenity provisions in Wales shall he seen very clearly to be the responsibility of the Welsh people.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she tell us, for the benefit of those who do not know that part of the world very well, what recreation takes place on these various reservoirs at the moment?
BARONESS WHITE: It is mostly a matter of fishing, sailing, nature trails, picnic sites and view-points where you just sit and absorb the view and the beauties of nature. The Clywedog reservoir that I have mentioned so many times is a modern regulating reservoir. It has a very active sailing club and arrangements for fishing. I think myself

929
that other amenities could be very much better developed there. This is partly because at the moment these things are not run locally—it is the week-enders who come for the most part, though not exclusively, from the Midlands who run the sailing arrangements, and so forth. I believe there is scope there for better provision for refreshment arrangements and so on. This is something that I know the Welsh Tourist Board in particular are very anxious to promote, and I would hope also that the Countryside Commission Welsh Committee would arrange for amenities such as picnic spots and nature trails. There is considerable scope for that type of recreation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble Baroness about Vyrnwy? Is it one of those reservoirs which are surrounded by a fence that no one can possibly get through, or is some recreation allowed there at the moment?
BARONESS WHITE: It is very much more closely guarded, certainly. I am not so familiar with it as I am with Clywedog, but it is one of the two old Eland Valley reservoirs, where the water is piped directly. Therefore there is greater control, and one appreciates that there has to be.
LORD ABERDARE: Perhaps I might add, for the information of my noble friend, that all this planning and development would be done by the Welsh National Water Development Authority. It is their responsibility to do that. All we are talking about is the running of it—that is, to see that the running of the reservoir is properly carried out and
that human beings do not pollute the reservoir once the recreation facilities are there.
BARONESS WHITE: Are we not really boggling at something which could be arranged in the scheme? If this is really of over-riding importance, then surely the Severn-Trent Authority, before the beginning of the scheme could say, "We must have our watchman on the spot", and that would be part of the scheme. I seriously put forward to your Lordships that the Minister is allowing the lesser points, which I believe could be dealt with quite satisfactorily on an administrative basis, to obscure his vision of the essential political point of all this. I do not believe that these difficulties cannot be met within the formulation of an intelligent scheme by agreement between the parties. If the Severn-Trent Authority say, "We would not be happy unless we had our own inspectors or wardens on the spot", I believe that could be included in the scheme. I think that point applies to Vyrnwy but not to Clywedog, because it does not matter what you do with Clywedog, the water just goes down mingling with all the Severn water until it is extracted and purified when it is needed for use as drinking water. So far as Vyrnwy is concerned, all right: have a special scheme where you have your uniformed Severn-Trent people parading all round.
9.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Champion, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Snow, L.

Blyton, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byers, L.

Gowrie, E.

Auckland, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Aylesford, E.

Conesford, L.

Lothian, M.

Balfour, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaumont, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Brahazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sandford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Twcedsmuir, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.14 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 26, leave out ("in Wales").
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale. It deals with community compensation, which is a relatively new idea. The Bill enables the water authority which makes a reservoir in Wales, which may affect but not necessarily benefit a local community, to provide certain facilities for that community. I think the reason for this is that when the Welsh Council made a report in 1970 on water in Wales they suggested not only that compensation for the landowner and the occupier should be better than it was—and noble Lords will remember that this has been a bone of contention for a long time—but also that those members of the community who do not benefit in any way should get some benefit from it.
If this is a good idea in Wales—and I am sure it is; everybody has accepted that it is; it is in the Bill—is it not also suitable that it should be extended to those parts of England which are very similar to Wales in this respect? I could mention the Lake District; Devon; the Peak—upland areas which by their very nature are poor, supply water which goes somewhere else and which yields them very little advantage. The suggestion is that people living in areas of that kind in Wales should benefit. May I, by removing the words "in Wales" from Clause 20(8) of the Bill, extend this to other parts in England? Noble Lords will remember what an emotive issue reservoirs in this kind of area arc, and the psychological advantage of being able to do something for these areas is very great. I beg to move.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I would support very strongly indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said. I cannot see any reason for any distinction between England and Wales. As he has already said, there are certain parts of our country very similar to Wales
932
with hills where the rain is greater and where water can be collected and passed long distances. It is not only from the Welsh hills that water is passed long ways to Birmingham and the Midlands; the same thing happens in the Lake District, which the noble Lord has mentioned—and I declare an interest in both the Lakes Ullswater and Windermere there. Water is carried from there a very great distance to Manchester and beyond. We have identical situations both in Wales and in parts of England, and for the life of me I really cannot see why there should be this difference between two parts of the United Kingdom.
There is of course in this Amendment no intention whatever of doing any harm to Wales at all. All that is wanted is that the same advantages which, quite properly and quite rightly, belong to Wales in this clause should also belong to England as well. I know of no reason of any kind why the same facilities given to local communities in the hills in Wales should not be given to local communities in the hills in various parts of the United Kingdom.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to make it perfectly clear that, so long as we secure the provision of this part of the clause for Wales, we should not in any way wish to be selfish or dog in the manger. I am sure we should raise no objection at all to comparable provisions being made for similar places in England —the Lake District is perhaps the most outstanding. I think the reason why this is in the clause is, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, because we had a report from the Welsh Council, which had set up a special committee to study this matter in Wales, and they made this very strong recommendation. But I am sure that the feelings which gave rise to it must be common to all the supplying areas of the United Kingdom. And it is a quite simple matter. After all, those of us who live in these areas have to suffer the rainfall, which then flows to other parts and, apart from the addition to the rates, we get nothing for it. It is felt that this is one of the natural assets. Water is, after all, a natural asset like any other mineral substance, but we

933
get nothing for it. The rates of course really just save the Treasury. Nearly all the counties concerned are on some form of rate support grant, and all it means is that they get less rate support grant. They do not receive any more cash in the end; it just comes out of a different pocket.
So they do not feel that this is of any real benefit to the local community, although as I have said, it may save the Treasury something. There is a very strong feeling indeed that this is a local asset which is being abstracted from the area in which live the people who suffer the discomforts of the heavy rainfall, and it is enjoyed by people in far more prosperous parts of the country. Therefore, it was felt that this proposal that something might be done by the authority concerned for the local people would at least do something to mollify their feelings. I am sure that none of us in Wales would want to prevent the appropriate parts of England from receiving the benefits.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that certainly in the past and probably in the future there has been—and there will be —an explosive relationship between those parts of the Kingdom where the rain falls and where the reservoirs are built and from where the water is supplied, and the cities, such as Birmingham. Liverpool and Manchester, where the water is drunk and consumed. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the provision that is now in the Bill and to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred, is a provision which is designed to defuse to some extent this explosive relationship and to soften and mitigate the effects of the construction of these reservoirs. I think perhaps members of the Committee would share my view that there is something about the relationship between Wales and the West Midlands which is even more explosive than any other relationship, though I suppose that between the Lake District and Manchester comes pretty close. It may be that when we get to the Peak District and Nottingham and Derby we are a little lower in the scale, although between Cornwall and Plymouth I should think there is something of the same nature of explosiveness. The Bill as it is drafted makes special provision for Wales—I
934
think rightly, because Wales is a major supplier of water to England.
There is one factor which noble Lords have not yet recognised and which I ought to point out. Since this point was made by the Council and incorporated in the Bill, we have passed the Land Compensation Act and this empowers water authorities as well as other authorities to do things in mitigation of the adverse effect of public works, and this is what we are talking about. Of course it goes further than the provision in the Bill because that would apply to sewage treatment works and mitigation of the adverse effects of those. So the case made by the noble Lord is not perhaps quite as strong as he sought to make it appear.
I should like to take away the points that noble Lords have made and consider whether it is not possible to introduce a different sort of Amendment, perhaps conferring a power and not a duty upon the river water authorities to make provision of the kind that is already incorporated in the Bill. I hope that, with the undertaking to consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, he and his supporters will agree to withdraw this Amendment for the time being.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, does or does not do so, may I say that we certainly would not be happy if the duty were merely turned into a power. We feel most strongly that the duty should remain.
LORD SANDFORD: I was not proposing to alter what is in the Bill at the moment in respect of Wales, but to add to it.
LORD HENLEY: First let me say that the noble Lords reference to the Land Compensation Act is not a very happy one. After all, the Land Compensation Act deals with England as well as Wales already, and I know that it has made certain improvements with regard to compensation—not very great ones, but it has made some—and it has clone one good thing which is to begin to change the attitude of mind toward compensation. But so far as this Amendment is concerned it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with it. I will of course withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking that

935
the noble Lord has given. But I should not be at all happy if the noble Lord's own Amendment were to fall short for England in respect of anything he has already offered to Wales. I know that the situation in Wales is perhaps even more explosive than it is in Devon or Cumberland, or yet in the Peak District, but that is no reason at all for treating it any better than the rest of England. We should all be treated the same in this respect, and I hope that when the noble Lord drafts his Amendment and we see it at Report stage it will neither diminish what Wales now gets under the Bill nor offer less to England. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.26 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 55A.
Page 26, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the Council and the Water Space Amenity Commission make to any water authority such grants as he considers necessary to enable that authority to discharge their duty under subsection (1) above.")
The noble Lord said: The "subsection (1) above" referred to in the Amendment is subsection (1) of Clause 20 which reads as follows:
"Every water authority and all other statutory water undertakers may take steps to secure the use of water and land associated with water for the purpose of recreation and it shall be the duty of all such undertakers to take such stew as are reasonably practicable for putting their rights to the use of water and of any land associated with water to the best use for those purposes."
I welcome very much indeed the Government's attitude in placing emphasis on the importance of making the maximum use of water space for sport and recreation, and for the preservation and enhancement of amenities. That is indeed very welcome. But this Amendment poses the questions: "Where is the finance to come from?" and "Where is the finance to come from in the ultimate?" We appreciate—and I speak now as a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Sport and Leisure—that grants can be made by the Sports Council. But the amount available to the Sports Council for all forms of sport is not very much, and certainly is not a great deal when compared
936
with what may be required for the purposes of water recreation in the future, because water recreation is an up-and-coming occupation and there is no doubt that it will play a very important part in the leisure pursuits of people in this country.
As I said on Second Reading, this is not just a question of canoeing or fishing. but of walking by the riverbanks, of picnic sites and all the rest of it. We appreciate' that grants can be made, possibly by the Countryside Commission. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything about that but, at the moment, as I understand it, the Countryside Commission has a very limited budget for all forms of countryside activities. I am not sure of the amount but I think it is something in the region of £1 million, which will not be anything like enough. Local government can provide grants for water recreation purposes and so on, but we are dealing with facilities which may well, and often will, transcend the locality. And the point remains that the concept embodied in Clause 26(1) of the Bill, namely, that taking one year with another the water authorities ought to aim to break even, could well mean that where it is impossible to obtain sufficient revenue to justify providing or maintaining facilities for water recreation, or recreation on water and land together, then the facilities will simply not be provided. This, in my view, would be very unfortunate indeed.
I do not believe that this Bill embodies the proper concept of what is going to be required in the future. It is going to be something much greater than can be provided by the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission or local government. We should like to be assured, first of all, that adequate grants will he available to enable water authorities to discharge their obligation on recreation if they cannot do so otherwise out of their revenues; secondly, that water authorities will not feel that they have to charge excessive fees for some recreation, thus risking denying the sport or recreation to the less well off; and, thirdly, that where the general revenue of the regional water authority is only sufficient to meet their general outgoings there will he cash available to help them to provide facilities for which charging is not possible, for instance, the use of river banks,

937
picnic areas and so on, where you simply cannot levy a per capita charge.
This is only a permissive Amendment; nothing is lost by including it in the Bill, and some Government some day may wish to take advantage of it. I should like to conclude with an extract from the First Report of the Select Committeee on Sport and Leisure where they emphasised this point very strongly indeed. They said:
"Recreation is not a field in which monolithic central policies are appropriate. Regional variations and local involvement are indispensable. The responsibility of local authorities, however, is subject to two important conditions. The first condition is that national strategic planning must co-ordinate the activities of local authorities and influence their decisions; and, secondly, a substantial clement of central grant aid must supplement local finance."
This is the point of this permissive Amendment, which I am quite sure one day some Government will want to use. I beg to move.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has just said. It is essential that every facility that can be obtained for water recreation, and that of course includes finance, should be so obtained. I very much support and appreciate subsection (1) of Clause 20, which encourages the use of water for recreation. Water, particularly in the inland areas, is getting in very short supply. More and more people are wanting to use water in that way. I declare an interest, in that I am President of the British Water-Ski Federation. More and more is it necessary in this country to use every space of water that can be obtained for recreational purposes. We see an increase in angling, an increase in canoeing, in under-water activities, as well as in water-skiing and nature conservancy, swimming and all the rest. It is, therefore, extremely important that we look ahead in this way. Therefore, I very briefly but most warmly support what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. Of course a very important step is this permissive Amendment, which does help on the financial side; it could be very essential in ensuring that the kind of water recreational development we should like to see occur in our country does in fact take place.
LORD GREENWAY: I, too, would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Byers's Amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. I was in Luxembourg last year with the European Parliament, and I know what goes on there. I have been in Epernay; I came back last Sunday. I saw what use was being made of waterways at Pentecôte—our Whitsun holiday which we have wrecked; we do not have it now. I was with my good lady wife coming back from Epernay on the train, and I saw all the people who were camping and making great use of the waterways and the lakes they have there, and even elsewhere in Luxembourg. I thoroughly support Lord Byers's Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: I have read this Amendment very carefully. It seems to me to add nothing at all that really matters to this clause. The first subsection of Clause 20 can be carried out without any grant at all from the Government. No grant at all is necessary for the river authorities to carry out the function that is imposed upon them by Clause 20(1). When we come to grants under Schedule 3, we have an Amendment down which suggests that the Secretary of State should make money available for the purpose of enabling the authority to make only such charges as are reasonable for the authority's recreational facilities. In that Amendment we have an Amendment which has some Punch and some force to it. What are you going to apply the money for? What are you going to use it for, if the Secretary of State will grant it? You will use it for the purpose of reducing the charges on the recreational facility users. Our Amendment, No. 94, seems to me to be a much better Amendment—perhaps it is because we devised it—than the Amendment now before us.
I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is up to, but if he reads his Amendment carefully and considers the first subsection of Clause 20 he will see that it does not really add any punch at all to what he would wish to see happen in connection with recreation. With the rest of what he and other noble Lords have said I am in absolute agreement. We ought to use these facilities to the maximum, but using them to the maximum means that you must be able to let people use them without imposing charges on them which would prohibit their use

939
by most people. Here is the difference between the two Amendments, and I rather think that it would be better if eventually we could persuade this Committee to adopt our Amendment rather than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has proposed.
9.38 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is difficult. I see the point of my noble friend's speech, but also see something else here, because the wording of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, says:
"The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation … make to any water authority such grants as he considers necessary"—
and here I think is the operational bit—
"to enable that authority to discharge their duty …".
Their duty under the subsection may in the beginning have nothing to do with recreation. It may help if some people have read The Background to Water Reorganisation in England, as no doubt nearly every noble Lord in the Chamber has. I do not want to bore you, but it may have to do with a massive amount of things, like widening canals, or puddling canals, about which I know something. Before you can use the canal the canal has to be cleaned out and made fit. If we are thinking of collecting pennies from the public—and I know how many pennies they collect in some of these lovely National Parks—to make these canals available, another "think" is due for this noble Chamber. From reading the latter part of this Amendment, I think, with all due respect, that the Liberal Amendment is looking at the matter from the point of view also of getting the amenities prepared, whatever those amenities may be.
LORD BYERS: Will the noble Lord allow me to correct him? This is not a Liberal Amendment; it is an Amendment which stems from the First Report of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure. It is not a Party Amendment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I meant liberal with a small "1". The noble Lord has now contradicted his own liberal outlook. One has to be careful with the English language; the Welsh is
940
much clearer. Consequently, this liberal and far-seeing Amendment, moved with the perspicacity of the noble Lord who has just interrupted me, is worthy of attention and I shall move into the Lobby with him if he feels so inclined. I shall also move into the Lobby on the other Amendment No. 94, when we reach it, together with my noble friends. I would refer to pages 26 and 27 of the Report, about the massive preparation which is needed—it would be invidious to read those pages out to the Committee—on canals and water space, on the preparation for sports such as those which the noble Lord opposite spoke about, and on these cheap underwater sports for youngsters and teenagers at school. There has to be safety, and pools, rivers and canals have to be prepared, to say nothing of the three-and-a-halfmillion fishermen of England who no Jonger have any rights of consultation, and who are now losing their right at Common Law—I shall raise that matter another time—to make a protest. Consequently, I am delighted that this liberal Amendment has been put forward and I shall move with alacrity into the Lobby, if the noble Lord has the courage to divide the Committee.
LORD SANDFORD: It may not be necessary for us all to move in support of this perspicacious and liberal Amendment. But I should like to start by acknowledging the helpfulness of the House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, and to say that the Report has been a very great help in drafting these clauses in this Bill. I hope that when we have been through them the Committee will agree not only that the Lords Select Committee has done a useful job, but that the Government have responded effectively to it. Two sets of Amendments have been commended to the Committee—the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which is No. 55A, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Champion, which are Nos. 94 and 94A—and I agree that it might be useful for us to consider them together.
They are indeed admirable Amendments and I should be happy to accept them, if I did not feel that what they are seeking to do is already fully and adequately provided for in the Bill at

941
Schedule 3, paragraph 34, where there is this permissive power, which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, so rightly said should be somewhere, for the Secretary of State to make grants to water authorities. In sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 34, your Lordships will see that there is additional provision for a direction to be given, if necessary, indicating for what purpose those grants are to be paid. Furthermore, there is also a power to lend sums of money. So I can assure all three noble Lords that what they are seeking to do, which is something which ought to be in the Bill, is already in the Bill, so their points can be said to be fully met. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, raised a rather different point on the grant-giving power of the Water Space Amenity Commission, which I think we shall have an opportunity to go into more fully when we reach Clause 22 which deals with that body. With that explanation and assurance, I hope that all three noble Lords will be happy and that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will riot feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD BYERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. If he feels that what he has proposed and what is embodied in Schedule 3 is a proper response to the recommendations made in the First Report of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, then I am quite happy to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that that is so. We may want to come back to it if, after having studied Schedule 3, we feel that this is riot entirely what we had in mind; but, having had a quick look at it, it may well be. I beg leave—
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether, before the noble Lord sits down, I could "come clean" on this to the extent of saying that this is not so much a response as a successful anticipation of what the Select Committee would say because this was already in the Bill. There are other points where we have specifically responded.
LORD BYERS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he could anticipate our final Report. It would save us a lot of time. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Duties with regard to nature conservation and amenity]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 26, line 44 leave out ("natural beauty of the countryside") and insert ("beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. This is in fulfilment of an undertaking given at the Committee stage in another place. My honourable friend Mr. Griffiths recognised that in this context the term "natural beauty" is not sufficient because we may well find that the water space that ought to be used for the benefit of the local population is in a derelict urban area, and by no stretch of the imagination could that be encompassed by the term "natural beauty". Therefore, to make it clear that what we are concerned about is not only the preservation and conservation of natural beauty in the countryside but also the improvement and enhancement of less attractive, ugly and derelict areas in town as well as in country, this particular Amendment has been made to the Bill. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am sure we all agree with the principle of this Amendment, but it seems to me that the English of it is not very attractive. I was wondering if it could not read "beauty or amenity of" any rural or urban area. It seems to me that "amenity of the area" rather than "amenity in the area" would be more expressive.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be very happy to consider that with the draftsman. It is not always easy to get elegant English and accurate legislation, but we shall do our best.
9.48 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) In formulating or considering any such proposals water authorities shall have special regard to their possible ecological consequences and in the event of their deciding that any proposal is desirable in spite of the possibility

943
that it will cause injury to natural beauty, or flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, or buildings or other objects of architectural, archaeological or historic interest, or the ecological condition of an inland water or river estuary, they shall advertise their intention in at least one newspaper circulating in the area likely to be affected at least two months before starting to take action.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 21 deals with nature conservation and amenity, and this is surely one of the vital parts of the Bill. The more one considers this Bill from the point of view of one who is merely a consumer of water, the more involved some of the technicalities become. Indeed, this is in itself a very technical Amendment, but it is an important one. The existing legislation comes under the ambit of the Water Resources Act, which has done a great deal of good but does not in fact go far enough. It is not only the quantity and the quality of water supplies that we have to consider: there is another aspect, and that is the ecology, which, defined by the Encyclowdia Britannica, is:
"a basic approach to the conservation of natural resources".
Your Lordships have debated this particular subject on a number of recent Bills, and in a major Bill of this kind it is something which has to be considered very carefully.
Rivers vary in their length and in their composition, and ono of the necessary things is to avoid pollution as far as possible. This pollution can take a number of forms: sunshine on certain vegetation, pollution from land drainage and from animals and birds. This Amendment seeks to give protection. One criticism of the clause as drafted is that the Government merely "have regard" to these matters—which is really rather a discretionary power. The adjective "special" might be inserted here; because it is very important if we are going to have our rivers and other waterways for recreational use as well as for sources of drinking water that we should keep them clean. There is another very important part to this Amendment which concerns a matter not yet been considered in the Bill. Many of these rivers are in rural areas which often do not have the modern media of communication of our cities and urban areas. They
944
have to rely very much on the local newspapers. This Amendment seeks to cause the authorities to make sure that the local newspapers (or at least one local newspaper) carry an advertisement at least two months before work begins of what is proposed to be done. As I understand it, this is no new proposal. For any compulsory purchase or for any local government matter of that kind there is a requirement for a public inquiry which is advertised in local newspapers. The Amendment seeks to add that provision to this Bill. I hope that that explains the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My noble friend has explained the purpose of this Amendment perfectly clearly. I think he is making two points: he is asking that the regional water authorities should have regard to the possible ecological consequences of what they are proposing and that they should advertise their proposals. I will answer those two points separately. My belief is that the possible ecological consequences are fully covered and embraced in the terms of Clause 21(1), particularly where they refer to the duty of the water authority to
"have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest…"
I will draw the attention of the draftsman to my noble friend's remarks, and if he can satisfy me that the possible ecological consequences are not embraced in those terms we will see what we can do to amend the Bill to make sure that they are.
As to the second point, that the proposals of the regional water authorities shall be advertised, I can assure him that what he is seeking to do is more than covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts and the Water Resources Acts, which require not only what he has suggested in his Amendment but a great deal more to be done. A number of other stringent requirements—more stringent than in my noble friend's Amendment—have to be undertaken and gone through before any proposals such as he has in mind can be proceeded with. So I hope that my noble friend will feel satisfied, at any rate for the time being, that his points are fully met already.
LORD AUCKLAND: I thank my noble friend for that full answer which I should like to consider carefully. This relates to a part of the Bill which has caused a great deal of interest up and down the country, but I think that my noble friend's reply has covered the point satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.56 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 27, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) It shall be the duty of every water authority for any inland waterway consisting of or including a navigable river to maintain any bank of such river which carries a towpath being a public right of way.
Provided that this subsection shall not affect any duty which the highway authority may have in respect of such right of way.")
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. The Amendment seeks to make it the duty of every water authority to maintain the banks of the river along which a towpath runs which is a right of way. Walking along the banks of rivers is becoming increasingly popular. I use the term "towpath" because an Amendment was moved in the Commons which was rather wider in its scope and did not meet with the approval of the Government. This Amendment deals with towpaths in a rather narrow way. Towpaths are being lost, partly I think because of the increase in the number of power boats which are used and which cause damage to the banks by erosion.
At present no authority has a duty to maintain the river bank. Of course, a river authority has a duty to maintain the river for navigation and a highway authority has a duty to maintain the surface of a path which is a right of way. But there is no responsibility at all in the case of towpaths. I need not quote examples as no doubt your Lordships will be able to recall instances where towpaths have been lost. This Amendment seeks to lay the duty firmly and securely on the new water authorities, as the successors to the river authorities, which seems to me perfectly just and equitable. In any case, the authority will need to inspect the river and its banks regularly, and this will not exclude any arrangement made between the river
946
authority and the planning authority for the improvement of a towpath and the adjoining land for recreational purposes. It may well be that the river authority should be able to recover some part of the cost of this work by a small increase in the navigation charges on power boats, which represent only a tiny proportion of the total cost of boating. A small increase in the charges would not be an undue burden on boat owners or hirers.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to say a word before my noble friend replies to the Amendment. The highway authority has a permissive power to spend money on a right of way, and in some cases it does so. It is true that the river authority has no responsibility for maintaining a towpath when it is no longer used for towing, and to-day the paths are not used for towing. But the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, of an increase in the registration charge for launches using the river sufficient to cover this work, would, let me assure the Committee, be a very heavy charge. The cost of repairing towpaths which have been eroded, and which in many cases have fallen into the river, is very high. I could give an example of the restoration of a towpath by the River Thames where originally the thought was to try to get it completely repaired the whole way from London to Cricklade. That idea has been abandoned, but the Thames Conservancy was successful in persuading the local authorities concerned to pay the very heavy cost of repairing the towpath as far as Staines, which was at least a start. But the cost ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is a very expensive thing to do. Personally, I entirely sympathise with Lord Henley's object. The towpath is a very attractive walk, and it should be preserved, but the cost of doing it is heavy. It certainly could not be borne by the users of the river without imposing on them a completely intolerable burden.
I would ask my noble friend to give us, as I am sure he will, his considered opinion on this, but I am rather of the opinion that this is a responsibility of the local authority. It is a right of way; it is like any other footpath. The highway authority already has a permissive power to spend money on such parts, and I think this is the right thing to do. This

947
is an amenity for the general public enjoying themselves walking by the side of the river. I should have thought that the right approach here was for the Government to encourage local authorities to take up their burden, use the powers that already exist, and for them to provide what is needed—as it is undoubtedly needed—in restoring and maintaining footpaths wherever they should exist or have existed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull in connection with his Amendment No. 57A, which has a bearing on this matter. My noble friend seeks by his Amendment to establish quite squarely where the responsibility lies for the maintenance of a pathway or walkway that is used for commercial purposes. It is understood, of course, that where there is a public right of way the highway authority has a duty to maintain the services. Then there seems to be below the surface of the right of way some rather peculiar no-man's land from the point of view of who looks after the support of the surface. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to put this responsibility—that is, the responsibility for the bank and that which supports the surface and indeed the whole responsibility, on the water authority.
If my noble friend Lord Sandford is unable to fix a responsibility for the whole or for the pathway in its various parts, then, frankly, irrespective of the cost, it seems to us to be the responsibility of the water authority to maintain, since they derive the benefits of income from running the rivers, recreation facilities and so on on the waterways. Therefore it would seem quite reasonable that that authority should bear the responsibility for the upkeep.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this topic. I was particularly grateful for the information given by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who, from his experience as Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, has well made the point that a duty quite as starkly expressed as it is in the two Amendments that have been discussed would not be practicable, and would, if it were carried into the Bill, badly distort the functions of both the
948
Waterspace Amenity Commission and the regional water authorities, because they would then have to devote quite an inordinate amount of their resources to one particular recreational facility.
I think we all agree that a well-kept towpath on an attractive bank of the river is one of the most valuable amenities. But the regional water authorities have a clear duty to make the best practical use of their water space, their rights on it and their rights on the land associated with it. That, I think, is about as far as it is right to go in legislation. What will undoubtedly happen is that the Water Space Amenity Commission, when they get to work, will address themselves to a big general problem such as to how to make the best use of towpaths and in the general discharge of the recreational duties laid on the regional water authorities, and will be able greatly to assist the regional water authorities in the preparation of their own particular plans for so doing.
What I should like to do is to thank the noble Lord for drawing this to our attention and to say that I must resist the Amendments because the duty is too starkly and simply put. I should like to ask him to recognise that in the terms of the Bill, and in particular the duty to make the best practical use of the water and water space, the rights on it and the rights on the land associated with it, is really the best way to set the task before the regional water authorities. I confirm, though I will not follow, my noble friend's remarks about the parallel duties with the highway authorities in these fields. The problem is too complicated to be set forward in quite the simple terms set out in this Amendment, but I would certainly agree that this is a matter that needs to be looked at, particularly by the Water Space Amenity Commission.
LORD HENLEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord for those words. It seems to me that that is probably sensible, and it may well be that such a duty is really well beyond what a regional water authority should do. Nevertheless, it is something which somehow—and sooner rather than later —we must look at and we must do something about, because every time a

949
towpath falls into a river it becomes just that little bit more expensive to put it back again. To lose these towpaths at a time when we need every bit of this kind of access into the countryside would be a great pity. I was not suggesting that all the cost of this, if that had been accepted, should fall on the users of power boats. I agree that would be an intolerable burden, but in so far as a great deal of the damage that is done to towpaths is done by these power boats, it does not seem to me unreasonable that a rather larger measure of the cost needed for keeping the towpaths up should be put upon them. I also accept the point that there is a permissive duty upon the highway authorities to do it. I know very few which take advantage of that permission, and it may well be that when the noble Lord looks at this he may be able to devise means by which the highway authorities and in some part the new regional water authorities and the Water Space Amenity Council may be able to devise means of doing this. Certainly it must be done. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Kinnoull, and in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said in speaking to Amendment No. 52C, together with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I do not wish to move the next Amendments, Nos. 57A and 57B.
Clause 22 [Water Space Amenity Commission]:
10.10 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 27, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert:—
("(1) For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on them by this section there shall be a body to be known as the Water Space Amenity Commission consisting of").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 58, and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 62. These are the two Amendments in which we are responding to some of the recommendations
950
of the first Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, fulfilling a promise made by my right honourable friend at the Committee stage in another place to reconsider the "promotional role" of the Commission, and seeking to clarify the duty and powers of the Water Space Amenity Commission. To summarise what we are doing in these two Amendments, we are responding to the proposal that a more positive duty, a more realistic purpose, a wider national role, should be assigned to the Water Space Amenity Commission. More specifically, we are adding to their advisory duties a duty to submit proposals, not just to wait to he asked, and to encourage and assist in the preparation of plans. We are also adding a duty to collate and publish. All those expressions will be found in the two Amendments that I have just mentioned. I hope that the Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in particular, will agree that this pair of Amendments implements quite a few of the recommendations the Committee put before us. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I am not sure whether this is the appropriate moment to speak. I was deferring to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, owing to his particular connection with the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure. At the end of our considerations of Clause 22 my noble friends and myself suggest that we should leave it out altogether, and it may be easier to discuss the matter here than on the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Frankly, we are not convinced—even the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, do not convince us —of the necessity of having the Water Space Amenity Commission at all. It applies only to England, not to Wales, although the noble Lord, Lord Byers, wishes to extend it to Wales. I can assure him, however, that that would not be welcome in Wales; we prefer to remain as we are. I say this after some experience, because, as one of those responsible for dealing with the Countryside Bill when it was before another place, I proposed that we should keep the Welsh arrangements under the same xgis as those for England, but with a separate Welsh Committee. I have Dome to the conclusion that what I thought then was

951
the wiser thing to do was not in fact justified. Having gone to Scotland, for example, I found that the Scottish Countryside Commission got on much better by itself than it would have done had it been linked to the English one. I suspect that we might have done better in Wales had we had a separate Countryside Commission for Wales. This was not my view some years back. But I find that the Welsh problems are apt to be regarded as peripheral; they do not get the same attention as they would if they were part of the totality which embraced England. Therefore for matters of this kind, which are so largely local in their application, it is better to have a separate arrangement for Wales, and we are perfectly content with what the Goverrnment propose.
Having said that, I repeat that we are not convinced that it is really necessary to have this body. We have the Sports Council, whose duty it is to promote water sports as much as land sports. We also have, of course, the British Waterways Authority, which will deal with the canal aspects, or can deal with them. We have the Countryside Commission. We have the Tourist Board. I am not at all certain that an information body, which is what the Water Space Amenity Commission is largely to be, is going to be anything other than yet another entity interposed between the water authorities, who also have the duty to promote recreation and so on, and the other national bodies—the Sports Council, Countryside Commission and Tourist Board—who also are engaged on this matter.
Should we really gain so much advantage by setting up yet another body? Will it not lead to a great deal more paper work and correspondence, and the kind of consultation which does not lead to anything productive but takes up a great deal of time of busy people? I am not in the least convinced that this is the way to tackle the promotion of water space amenity. It is not as though this body is to be, for example, a channel for grants. If it were able to use financial inducements or sanctions, as the case might be, to further its policy, then I should have looked at it with at least much greater interest and respect. But this, I understand, is not the intention of the Government. It seems to me that by establishing
952
this body one will have a diffusion and not a concentration of purpose. It is for those reasons that my noble friends and I do not think the Government are wise in putting forward this proposition. I repeat that, although the Amendments now proposed add some kind of substance to its duties and functions, they do not shake us in our basic objection to it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I again briefly support my noble friend who has just spoken about this Water Space Amenity Commission. Once again, no notice has been taken of the advice that has come from local authorities over the last two or three years, with the massive knowledge they have accumulated over a period of fifty years. We seem to be creating yet another body which has no real power in any sense at all; it is an advisory body. I find the precise role of the Commission ill-defined. One agrees that the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government wants to extend it, and that is all very well. But so far as its duties are concerned in regard to Clauses 20 and 21, and its duties in relation to local government, these are not at all clear. There is no reference at all to real consultation.
How can all this work be done? This Commission is going to be responsible for expansion. Let us take one item in which I am interested—the increase in sailing clubs, which has been from 400 to 1,600 in the matter of half a generation. The rowing clubs have increased by hundreds. Worst of all: the poor old fishermen of England, about whom we have made rollicking barrack-room songs, some of which I used to join in in my Eisteddfod days, are not even consulted, although there are 3½ million of them. They are just moved aside. Most of the jokes of the comedians of old, red-nose ones, and the jokes of noble Lords who were great after-dinner speakers, were based on stories about fishermen. But they are altogether forgotten in this connection. We are forgetting people. We are dealing with figures, computers and bodies—this wonderful floating word "body". It must be the effect of spaceship flight.
We are talking about amenities and river pollution, yet we have about 3 million people in Britain without water closets while they are gazing at the television,

953
watching people on the moon. We are so busy legislating that we are getting out of touch with reality. Consequently I see no real purpose in the establishment of this Water Space Amenity Commission. Why not use the local authorities properly? They have more knowledge tucked up in their own local heads than all this new-born body will acquire in the next 25 years; and that knowledge is being drastically cut aside in this neophiliac age in which we are living —love of change for the sake of change. That is the kind of world in which we are living to-day. Consequently I support wholeheartedly my noble friend's remarks at this time of the night and I hope that noble Lords will soon come to an end of their talking.
10.21 p.m.
LORD BYERS: I should like to give a qualified welcome to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said. I should not like to anticipate what will be the final recommendation of the Select Committee. What we said in our First Report was that the Water Bill makes no provision for positive recreational planning and the Committee would like Clause 22 to be amended.
They did not want to get rid of it, as the Opposition appears to do to provide that periodical reviews, plans and programmes for water authorities should include short and long-term plans for recreation. We said:
"There is a strong case for a national body interested in the provision of facilities forwater recreation across the whole country".
I still think that is right, and by "the whole country" I should like to include England and Wales, though I do not want to offend the Welsh susceptibilities in this matter. I honestly believe that we need more positive planning on a larger area when we are dealing with a matter such as water, whether it is on the technological side or the recreational side. We said,
"At present the function of providing facilities for water recreation was shared between the Sports Council and the Countryside Commission, and the Committee would have liked to see this involvement developed."
We said:
"However, if the decision is taken to set up a Water Space Amenity Commission then the Commission should be given a realistic purpose and should assume a national role."
954
I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has been trying to say that the Government are doing in order to meet the Committee so far as they can —to give the Commission a more positive role, to give it a promotional role, and, if possible, to remove it solely from its advisor, field; and so far as he has gone, I welcome what the noble Lord has said.
LORD PEDDIE: On more than one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in replying to my own comments on an Amendment, has emphasised that the water authorities will be alive to their responsibilities with regard to amenity, and he was at great pains to emphasise that they were capable of carrying out that responsibility. I am prepared to accept that; but I now see that there is suggested a Water Space Amenity Commission, and I share the view of my noble friends that this is but a piece of window-dressing. None of us would oppose the general principle of doing all to encourage amenity but, frankly, if we set up a body like this, which I think is completely unnecessary, it will be full of advice but will have very little power to implement. It will just be another talking shop. The noble Lord opposite may reply to that particular point and indicate that a member of the Council will probably be the Chairman of the Water Space Amenity Commission. But if that be so, it is indicative of the fact that this job could be far better done by the Council itself, or by a Committee of the Council, upon which could be recruited or co-opted all the various interests.
You may ask, "What is the difference?" There is a fundamental difference, because here you would find that those people who will be urging the amenity use and development of these facilities, would be living, talking and working with people who have the power, the skill and the ability to implement those proposals. But what the Government are suggesting is to set up a separate body which, over the course of 'time, will simply mean developing a measure of non-co-operation, if not antagonism. Therefore, if the view is genuinely held that we seek to develop amenity through these water facilities. I do not think that this is the best way of going about it.

955
It has already been stated that under this Bill as it stands the Commission's advice would be limited to England. The Welsh National Development Authority is to be given—under Clause 24, I think it is—responsibility for preparing recreational planning for Wales. There is no justification for yet another national body that would be limited in effective power. It is very significant indeed that the Sports Council and the Regional Sports Council object to these proposals. So I hope that the Government will accept this point of view. I do not offer this suggestion in a spirit of intense criticism. Somebody, somewhere along the line, has felt that it was necessary to give a very positive and recognisable gesture that they wanted to do something to encourage amenity. Fair enough! We shall accept that. But on considered reflection upon this Bill, surely it is perfectly obvious that, with all the continuing emphasis we have heard from the other side that the water authorities will recognise their responsibility for dealing with amenity, they will accept the proposition. We recognise the need for developing amenity. Let it be part and parcel of the Water Council's obligation. Let it be a special cornmittee of that Council upon which would be co-opted all the different interests that could express themselves and be, as I said previously, working cheek by jowl with the people who can implement those proposals.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that it has been helpful to have the debate on whether or not we should have the Water Space Amenity Commission at this point. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the Government have given much thought to whether or not to have this body, and we think that it is a good idea, more especially because the emphasis on amenity and recreation has come upon us not only suddenly but with such tremendous force. Both aspects need to be developed and a special body at national level is required, not only to advise but to do all these other positive things which have now been incorporated in the Bill in response to our own Select Committee's recommendation that a positive, promotional, recreational role is called for. I do not accept that this will be a mere talking shop. I do not accept that it is little more than a mere gesture
956
in this direction. It will be a body that will have an important, positive, valuable and indispensable role to play, and therefore I think that we must have this Commission.
It may well be that some of your Lordships can think of a better name for it. I do not think that the Water Space Amenity Commission is a particularly elegant name but we have not been able to think of anything better. I cannot agree (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek who made the point) that there are built into this the seeds of perpetual antagonism. The fact that we have on this body the Chairmen of the Water Authorities themselves and other members appointed by the Secretary of State itself establishes close links between this body and the regional water authorities whom the Commission will be there to advise, assist and encourage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this body will not serve any useful purpose, and indeed will be fruitful of all sorts of conflict, if we fail to get the relationship right between it, the Countryside Commission, the Sports Council the English Tourist Board. But I believe we have now managed to achieve this. I admit that there were objecttions from these bodies in the first place, but I think the one thing they chiefly objected to was the proposal originally mooted that we should give grant-giving powers to this Water Space Amenity Commission, because this would have introduced a series of duplications. But as the noble Lord will see, we have stopped short of doing that, not least because of the objections of these bodies to it.
I do not have to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady White, to accept the Water Space Amenity Commission for Wales, because it does not extend there. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, may continue to advocate the Council for Wales, but we do not go as far as that with him. I see a good deal of merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, was saying about a recreational committee, but I think that where this particular suggestion has force is if his remarks are applied to the regional water authorities. That is where a committee of the main body to execute recreation and amenity policies will be very useful, and I shall be very surprised if the regional water authorities themselves do not adopt the

957
suggestion. But I stand firm in my belief that at the national level the pattern set forth in the Bill and now amended in the light of the Select Committee's Report is about what we should have, though I do not exclude the possibility of being able to improve it further in the light of experience.
10.33 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eight").
The noble Lord said: I think I am rather nearer the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, about the Water Space Amenity Commission than to my noble friend Lord Byers. I shall need a good deal of convincing that it is really a worthwhile part of the Bill. Neverthless, if we are going to have one, it seems to me that a little amendment is needed as to its composition, because I think the relationship between the various overlapping bodies is the one thing that must be got right. Similarly, the advice that the Council is to get must be right. It seems to be the intention to provide representation for nearly all aspects of sport and recreation, but to leave out those on whose land or in whose vicinity this sport and recreation takes place. Recreation brings very great problems in relation to the primary use of the land. If that is wrong, it means destroying any possibility of a proper relationship on the Water Space Amenity Commission.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is vital, in getting the balance right, to make provision for getting advice from people who have a knowledge of what the primary use of the land is—agriculture and so on. Unless we get that right, we shall not obtain the co-operation of owners and farmers in order to get provision of those facilities at all. It has universally been accepted that fisheries should be represented on the Commission, and it seems appropriate that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries should appoint this representative. I think he would probably also be the right Minister to appoint someone to advise the Council with regard to problems related to the land itself, which is,
958
after all, the raw material which is going to be used for recreation. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I have considerable sympathy, if not actual agreement, with the drift of the noble Lord's argument. In answering him I wonder whether I might also answer my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, if he would agree that we could consider at the same time Amendment No. 61A. I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is also speaking to his Amendment No. 60. In answer to all three of those, what I would say is that provision for consultation about the appointment of persons interested in these fields is secured, or can be secured, under subsection (3)(d) of this clause. I can add to that the assurance, which has already been given in another place, that it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before making these appointments, to ensure that the aspects for which that Minister is responsible are satisfactorily covered. I can also say that the Minister himself is content with that proposed procedure, and satisfied that when it is carried out the aspects for which he is responsible, and with which noble Lords are concerned, will be adequately met. I hope that the two noble Lords will be satisfied also, and will not feel it necessary to press those three Amendments.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend. May I apologise for being unavoidably absent earlier in the evening. I do, in fact, return now refreshed. The two arguments basically here concern those who should serve on the Commission, and those who should be consulted. Of course my Amendment No. 61A simply asks that the organisations representing farmers should basically be consulted. As I understand my noble friend, this will be done under subsection (3)(d), and I am grateful for that assurance.
What I should like to ask is why it could not be written into the Bill? It is not, I understand, an obligation at the moment, and the farmers represent a very important aspect of the Commission's work. I would remind the Committee that there are two miles of farms

959
to every one mile of river. I think farmers add a very substantial voice to the whole success of the Commission's work. Perhaps before I withdraw my Amendment my noble friend could say what harm there would be in accepting this simple Amendment, which concerns purely a matter of consultation and not of serving.
LORD SANDFORD: The general answer is one that I have given at several earlier stages of the Bill, that we are combining in the regional water authorities and in the Water Space Amenity Commission an enormously wide range of interests. I have catalogued them several times already. If I were to respond as my noble friend would like me to respond and give an undertaking that the N.F.U. specifically should be consulted before any of these appointments were made, that would open the floodgates to a vast number of similar applications from a whole range of bodies, all of whom have a claim—maybe not such a strong claim— to be consulted to the same extent. This is why I am asking the Committee to accept the assurance from me that my right honourable friend will consult with the Minister of Agriculture certainly—and that does not exclude other consultations—and that the Minister of Agriculture, with his responsibility for the N.F.U. and other primary users of the land, land drainage, and so on, is satisfied from his point of view that this will meet the interests of this particular very important sector.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that assurance. May I just ask him specifically whether the Minister will recommend that bodies responsible for farming interests will be represented?
LORD SANDFORD: No. That is just the kind of direct assurance that I cannot give. Obviously, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will both have an interest in conducting through consultations with all the bodies concerned in developing the recreational potential of water space and the land associated, as thoroughly as they possibly
960
can. But for me to give categorical assurances that one particular body or group of bodies will be consulted would mean that I should have to come back at a later stage of the Bill and give a comprehensive catalogue of umpteen different authorities, each member of which would be fully consulted on every occasion. I hope that the Committee will be content with the broad assurances that I have given.
LORD HENLEY: I am perfectly happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I think that subsection (3)(d) of Clause 22 completely covers the noble Earl's point though it does not cover mine, which is extra representation. Nevertheless, I am glad to know that the Minister of Agriculture is content that the point which we both raised is met, and I fully accept the noble Lord's point that one does not necessarily want to have these matters written into the Bill. I think I said something earlier about not necessarily wanting to have a statutory representative for amenity. I do not know that one necessarily wants to have a statutory representative for any other interest either, so long as one is assured that these very important points are met. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) one shall be appointed after consultation with the British Waterways Board;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the membership of the Water Space Amenity Commission, but before I briefly develop the argument I should like, unusually, to correct my noble friend Lord Henley, who said that I was wedded to the Water Space Amenity Commission. I am not wedded to it, nor is the Select Committee. I quoted what the First Report of the Committee stated, which was:
"There is a strong case for a national body interested in the provision of facilities for water recreation across the whole country."
It went on to state that if, however, the decision is taken to set up a Water Space Amenity Commission, then various things should follow. I want to make this clear,

961
because I do not want to anticipate in any way what the final decision of the Select Committee should be on what is quite a complicated and difficult point, particularly when it has to be integrated into a whole pattern for recreation. But if there is to be a Water Space Amenity Commission, we should like to see one member of it appointed after consultation with the British Waterways Board.
The British Waterways Board is not included in this legislation but, in our view, it must be closely integrated into the whole scheme, and one way of assisting this aim is by giving it a seat on this Commission. I believe that this is rather different from asking for consultation with a whole list of different authorities and interests, because if we could get the British Waterways Board closely integrated we should have a better chance of getting the positive planning of water recreation as a whole on a comprehensive basis. The thought that led to this Amendment was included in the First Report, which stated:
"The numerous waters outside the water authorities' control, such as canals under the British Waterways Board and gravel pits, have a place of the first importance in any scheme of recreational provision and it would be wrong to confine the Water Space Amenity Commission to part only of the country's water resources. There is scope for the Commission to foster a unified and coherent policy of provision among the water authorities, the British Waterways Board and the private owners of water."
I do not think it is too much to ask that the British Waterways Board should be consulted as to one member of the Water Space Amenity Commission. If not, I shall be interested to hear the Government's reasons. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I certainly do not exclude this, but it is not written into the Bill for the reason that the English Tourist Board, the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council, which are written in, have parallel functions in precisely the same field as the Water Space Amenity Commission. It is for that reason—and noble Lords have pointed out the importance of it already—that we feel it must be provided for statutorily. Although the British Waterways Board, like the regional water authorities, has a network of watercourses all over the country, it is a rather different body run
962
ning its own affairs on a different set of waters; and the closest relationship for the Water Space Amenity Commission will, if anything, be with the Inland Waterways Advisory Amenity Council of the British Waterways Board. I can confirm that the Secretary of State will certainly consult them among the others envisaged in Clause 22(3)(d).
LORD BYERS: I must say I am not very convinced by that argument; but I happen to have an advantage over the noble Lord since he will be giving evidence to the Committee next week and we shall see how far we can take him along this route. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL had given notice of an Amendment (No. 61A):
Page 27, line 40, after ("interested") insert ("in any riparian agricultural land or").
The noble Earl said: In saying that I do not intend to move this Amendment perhaps I may thank my noble friend for the assurance he gave earlier. Perhaps I could also say that although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, feels that my Amendment was not necessary, in fact, my advisers tell me it was.
LORD SANDFORD: We have already discussed this Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 44, at end insert:
("(3A) It shall be the duty of the Com-mission—

(a) to advise the Secretary of State, the Council and water authorities on the discharge of their respective functions so far as relating to recreation and amenity in England;

(b) to submit to water authorities any proposals which the Commission consider appropriate for the discharge of the authorities' functions so far as so relating; and". —(Lord Sandford.)

LORD BYERS LORD BYERS had given Notice of an Amendment to the Amendment:
Line 4, at end insert ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In view of the semi-nationalism which has emanated from certain quarters of the Committee, I will take my Amendment back to my Committee and not move it to-night.
10.49 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 27, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3A) above, the Commission shall advise the Secretary of State, the Council and water authorities with a view to securing a national policy for the development of facilities for water-based recreation and may for the purpose of giving effect to such a policy themselves promote or collaborate in action to be taken by other bodies or persons interested in water or land associated with water.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is really to stress once again what I have been saying most of the evening, and that is that the paramount need is for a national body for water recreation. In producing such a body we feel it is essential that there should be a positive plan for all water amenities, and that this plan should be one in which those making it look a long way ahead. We have a long view of leisure and recreation, particularly water recreation, ahead of us; and the purpose of this Amendment is to find out what the Government intend to do in this field. I beg to move.
LORD GREENWAY: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for his Amendment and on behalf of the Government I welcome the stress he is laying on this concept of laying the duty of positive recreational planning upon regional water authorities, and indeed upon other executive bodies like them in other spheres. But if a statutory duty is to be laid on this new body, or any other body in this field, full consideration needs to be given to the role of the new body in relation to other important bodies like the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council. This Amendment would need further improvement before it could be said to do this satisfactorily. I should like to consider the Amendment and perhaps we shall have to have further discussions with the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council and perhaps the members of the noble Lord's Committee in order to be sure that we have the matter right before we accept any further amendment to the Bill; but I
964
am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
LORD BYERS: In view of that undertaking, I am perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Periodical reviews, plans and programmes]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 29, line 41, leave out from ("any") to end of line 46 and insert ("of the following plans prepared for any part of that area under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, that is to say, a structure plan, a local plan and any development plan within the meaning of Schedule 5 to that Act").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking given during the Committee stage in another place. Its effect is to require the water authorities in carrying out their duties under Clause 23 to have regard to local plans under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to structure plans and, where appropriate, to development plans.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
10.54 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 63C:
After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:
Discharge of recreation and amenity functions in and around Greater London
,—(1) The Thames Water Authority shall, after consulting the interested bodies, submit to the Secretary of State not later than 1st April 1975 proposals for the transfer to the Greater London Council of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses and land to which this section applies and, subject to subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order give effect to the proposals, either as submitted to him or with modifications.
(2) The Secretary of State may himself at any time after consulting the interested bodies amend or revoke an order under subsection (I) above or, where any such order has been revoked, provide for the transfer of all or any of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses or land to which this section applies to the Greater London Council.
(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is desirable to make an order under

965
subsection (1) above giving effect to any proposals with modifications which appear to him to be substantial, he shall direct the Thames Water Authority, after consulting the interested bodies, to reconsider the proposals and submit revised proposals to him under that subsection within a time specified in the direction, but the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to an order under this subsection giving effect to the revised proposals.
(4) While any recreation and amenity functions are exercisable by the Greater London Council by virtue of an order under this section, section 22(3A) above shall have effect as if refences therein to water authorities included references to the Greater London Council.
(5) In this section "the interested bodies" means—

(a) the Water Space Amenity Commission;

(b) the Greater London Council;

(c) in the case of proposals made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, the Thames Water Authority and in any case any other water authority whose recreation and amenity functions will be affected by these proposals in question;

(d) the Port of London Authority;

(e) the Common Council of the City of London;

(f) the London Boroughs Association;

(g) such other bodies representing persons interested in the use of the watercourses and land to which this section applies as the Thames Water Authority consider desirable or the Secretary of State directs in the case of proposals submitted to him and as he considers desirable in the case of his own proposals.

(6) In this section "recreation and amenity functions" means, in relation to any authority, the authority's functions under section 20 above and, so far as relating to those functions, their functions under sections 21 and 23 above, not being in any case functions with respect to navigation conferred by or under any enactment.
(7) The watercourses to which this section applies are:

(a) so much of the River Thames as lies within Greater London;

(b) every watercourse, other than the River Thames, which is for the time being a main metropolitan watercourse within the meaning of Schedule 14 to the London Government Act 1963;

(c) so much of the River Beam, the River Ingrebourne and the River Roding as lies within Greater London; and

(d) so much of any other watercourse situated wholly or partly within, or adjoining the boundary of, Greater London as lies within the flow and reflow of the tides of the River Thames;

and the land to which this section applies is any land associated with any watercourse to which this section applies.
(8) Without prejudice to any power exercisable by virtue of section 31 below, an order under this section may contain such transitional, incidental, supplementary or consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 63C. It looks rather formidable but I think that I can move it fairly briefly. It is the Amendment which secures the discharge of recreation and amenity functions that would otherwise vest in the Thames Water Authority and confers them on the Greater London Council. I explained that it was the intention of the Government to secure this and this is the Amendment that does it. Associated with it are Amendments Nos. 73A and 74F. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has apologised to me for his I absence and asked that rather than expand the whole philosophy and detail of this matter in full, I just give an assurance on one phase that is used in the new clause, "whole or part", which I understand raises some anxiety in the G.L.C. that they are not going to get quite what they expected to get.
The reason why the term has been used is that there are in fact three exceptions. One of them is in relation to the short sector of the Thames above Teddington and within the Greater London area. This is an area in which the Thames Water Authority will remain responsible for navigation; and the present view of the Government is that it would be unduly complicated if the G.L.C. were to exercise recreational functions on this short stretch. The matter is not now, finally resolved because, as noble Lords will see, the general intention of this clause is that a scheme should be worked out between the Thames Water Authority and the G.L.C. between now and April 1, 1975.
That is one reason for using the phrase "whole or part". There are other similar instances, such as that which makes it necessary to retain that kind of flexibility. At this stage of the evening I think it would be the general desire of the Committee that I should

967
do no more than the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me to do in explaining the purpose of this new clause.
LORD CHAMPION: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy I thank the Government for having put down this new clause and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his explanation of the point which my noble friend would have raised. Had I been able to read the noble Lord's writing I should have made a long speech, but as I cannot read it, I do not propose to make that speech.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: Now that we have reached the end of Part II, which is where we had agreed to get to I think the time nas come for me to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

HULL TIDAL SURGE BARRIER BILL
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.