HL Deb 03 December 1974 vol 355 cc133-67

6.8 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARLY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness BIRK)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Viscount Goschen in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Ambit of Act, and interpretation.]

Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 9, after "1969" insert" or artificial channel for the continuous flow of water, including a canal, canalised river or other embanked water course;".

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deals with a point which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, because it seemed to me to go to the root of it. I raised it because I had had discussions with the British Waterways Board, which is immediately concerned with this problem, and which approached me. In this House one speaks entirely on one's own responsibility, but it seemed to me the point was one of public interest and that it ought to be raised, so that is why I raised it on Second Reading.

I then asked my noble friend Lady Birk whether she would tell me that she would give careful thought between Second Reading and Committee stage to the point about which I was concerned. She has done so, writing me an extremely helpful letter and showing that she has taken a great deal of trouble and has very carefully considered the arguments which I propounded. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend and your Lordships will not think that I am ungrateful or that I am being difficult if I refer to the matter once again in Committee. I have carefully examined her letter and have taken the opportunity of further discussions with the Board. As a result, I feel I can only tell your Lordships that the Board is still very concerned over the matter and that I think its concern is justified.

First, on the question as to whether this is a minor matter on which I ought to trouble your Lordships, I would say this. The British Waterways Board is, after all, a very large public corporation. It originally derived powers which belonged to the Transport Commission and is responsible for all inland waterways in this country. As such it has direct responsibility, so I understand, for something like 2,000 miles of inland waterways, largely consisting of canals. In addition, it is responsible for some 93 reservoirs and under direct responsibility, in relation to them, to take safety measures to prevent what can be extremely serious accidents involving not only property but also loss of life. I hope that if an anxiety which the Board feels is expressed by me in those circumstances, your Lordships will not think that I am dealing with a trivial matter. It is a matter of major public concern.

The anxiety is this. This Bill imposes upon undertakers, including the Board, a number of responsibilities to take precautions to see to it that the public are safeguarded and that accidents do not occur owing to water overflowing from reservoirs. That is a highly laudable purpose which I am quite certain would be supported by everyone in this House. There was a previous Act in 1930 which dealt with the same topic. The major difference between that Act and the present Bill is that this Bill contains the most elaborate enforcement machinery, and indeed contains provisions which would result in an undertaker finding itself criminally liable if it failed to take certain steps. The previous Act did not contain those enforcement provisions.

Therefore one has the situation of a Board with this very heavy public responsibility upon it, faced now—and rightly faced—with enforcement provisions which will have the effect of ensuring that the Board and other undertakers comply with their obligations imposed upon them by this Bill. In those circumstances, I should have thought it was eminently reasonable that the Board, and indeed any other undertaker, should say: "Certainly we will comply with our obligations, but we want to know precisely what is the extent of them." The short question which this Amendment raises is the following one: are they under obligations in respect of the artificial part of canals? If they are, then in the case of the Board this immensely enlarges the scope of its responsibility. It will impose upon the Board a very much greater financial responsibility than it has at the moment.

I recognise at once that it is not the Government's intention that the expression a "reservoir" which they use in the Bill should cover canals. They have made it perfectly plain that they do not mean to include canals in the scope of this Bill. But, as I ventured to point out, the Government and the Executive in this country have no control over the courts. It is not for the Government but for the courts to interpret the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and if the question ever arises as to whether the Board have been guilty of failure in relation to a canal, it is for the courts and not for the Government to determine whether the Board and other undertakers may be under some civil or criminal responsibility as a result.

I hope I have laid the foundation, at any rate, for an argument to the effect that it really is only fair and eminently in the public interest that one should know precisely what is the scope of this Bill, and precisely what is the scope of the obligation which is imposed on undertakers in relation to whatever a reservoir is. However, if a "reservoir" was an expression of precise import, no question would arise, but the whole reason for my moving this Amendment is that the expression "reservoir" is not an expression of precise meaning. My noble friend pointed out in her letter that it is an expression which has been used for a hundred years. It is an expression which was used and has been defined ever since in the 1930 Act, and there is an approximate definition in Clause 1 of this Bill. Neither of those definitions, in my view, imports certainty into the matter.

The doubt which I raise is this. If you have a canal with banks artificially built up, designed to contain water in order to support vessels navigating over it, is there any very obvious reason why a court should not say in due course, when the matter comes before it: "A canal of that sort, to contain water with artificial banks, perhaps having the result of raising the water above the level of the surrounding ground, is within the scope of the expression ' reservoir '. It is a kind of elongated reservoir." A reservoir can have any shape. It can be round or square, so why on earth cannot it be elongated?

If you say "Oh, yes. I know what a reservoir is when I see it", I should like to ask one or two questions. Is the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens a reservoir or not? It exists to have water in it, and children sail their boats upon it. I do not know whether or not in ordinary English parlance one would say that the Round Pond is a reservoir. Why it should not be, I do not know. What excludes it from the category of "reservoir", I cannot think. If I may pursue the question still further, take the pond at the top of Hampstead Hill. It is artificial, at least in part. It is constructed in order, to quote the words of the Bill, … that it may contain water as such".

What in the world, in that context, the words "as such" mean, I really do not know. They are really as obscure and unsatisfactory for the purpose of definition as any words could be, I should have thought.

Are those two pools of water reservoirs, or are they not? If not, would my noble friend tell me in terms why they are not reservoirs, and what stops them from being reservoirs. If they are reservoirs, why cannot an elongated canal be a reservoir? It partakes very much of the same feature as characterises those two pools of water. It contains water and it contains it in order that vessels—not children's vessels, but larger ones—can navigate on the surface of the water contained in the canal.

Ordinarily, I should have thought people would probably say that a canal was not a reservoir. But why on earth cannot we have some certainty? Why are Parliamentary counsel—and I have great respect and affection for them—sometimes, at any rate in my view, so obstinate? Why cannot they put in something to set this doubt at rest, so that the Board and other undertakers may adjust their proceedings upon the basis that they can measure up to any responsibility that legislation imposes upon them? The Bill should embody appropriate language to say whether or not the canals for which the Board are responsible are within the scope of this term "reservoir".

I really press upon my noble friend, grateful as I am to her for the trouble she has already taken, that this matter is one which should be further considered between now and Report. I gather that Parliamentary Counsel are anxious that if reservoirs in some way are excluded from the scope of the definition, other things may have to be excluded as well. Why not? If there have to be other exclusions, let us take the bull by the horns and exclude them. Why not exclude them and, instead, rest content with this ambiguous expression "reservoir" which I do not believe anybody could very clearly define.

There are already canals parts of which are blocked up, and which it is not altogether easy to distinguish from an elongated artificial reservoir. I was given the names of three reservoirs: I do not know the particulars of them. The Lancaster Canal has some such features, so do the Crompton Canal and the Grantham Canal. They have features which approximate them, at any rate to some extent, to the characteristics of an elongated reservoir.

I am not asking my noble friend to give me a full answer now. She has obviously carefully considered the arguments which I used before, but which I did not put forward in the detail that I venture to do this evening. I ask her to say that she will not close her mind to the subject but will give further thought to it between now and the Report stage of this Bill, recognising that this is a gigantic public corporation which experiences genuine feelings of anxiety on what it regards as an uncertainty in the terms of this Bill. That is my case. I merely ask my noble friend to say no more than that she recognises that she should not regard the matter as closed. I do not want to ask your Lordships to divide upon it; I want to put that to her and ask her to say that she will give further thought to it, in the hope that some way may be found between now and Report stage of this Bill to set these doubts to rest and to make the ambit of this Bill perfectly clear beyond chance. I beg to move.

6.22 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG

I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because the principle behind his Amendment is similar to the principle behind my Amendment. I am not at all satisfied that the definition of the term "reservoir" is yet right in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has picked on the specific instance of a canal, and it seems seems to me, on re-reading the Second Reading debate, that it is absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the Bill that canals should be brought within the scope of the Bill at all. I think I am right in saying that when these matters come to court the proceedings in Hansard are not taken into account—it must be the interpretation of the Act as it is passed.

One thing that even my short Parliamentary life has taught me is that it is very necessary to get the definition correct. I am aware that the British Waterways Board have expressed real concern that Clause 1 might apply to their canal system. Apart from anything else, if this were to be so it could involve them in very considerable expense. I do not think that is the real argument today because we are not debating whether canals should or should not be within the terms of this Bill. We are all agreed that they should not. The whole question is to find a way of making certain that they are excluded, and the purpose of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is to make this clear. It may well be there should be other categories of lakes—and I will advance this argument when I come to speak to my Amendment—which ought also to be excluded. I would join with the noble and learned Lord in asking the Government to have another look at this matter, to see whether they can come to Report stage with a better definition.

6.26 p.m.

Baroness BIRK

I am very grateful for the felicitous way that my noble and learned friend moved his Amendment. Of course I never find him difficult; but I would agree, being married to a lawyer, that lawyers are obstinate. There is however no difference between my noble and learned friend and myself over the aim to be achieved here; and this applies to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. The difference between us is whether in fact there is a doubt. Looking back on the Bills in which I have participated during the time I have been in your Lordships' House, I have always been extremely keen on the particular point that if there is a question of doubt it should be resolved. I always attack anything with that firmly in my mind. I must say after close consideration—and my noble and learned friend is right, I studied very carefully what he said I do not believe that there is in this instance a doubt. I will explain why, and also why I believe that his Amendment would make the definition less clear than it is at the moment. As has been said, it has always been the Government's intention that the Bill should not apply to canals. The point at issue is simply whether it is necessary or desirable to state specifically in the Bill that canals are excluded. When the noble Lord raised this point during the Second Reading debate, I gave him an assurance—as he was good enough to acknowledge—that canals were not covered by the Bill, but I also undertook to look very carefully into what he had said. We have now taken further legal advice. I can assure my noble friend—as I did in my letter to him—that the advice we have received is absolutely clear-cut and leaves no doubt that the Bill as it stands does not apply to canals or any offshoots of canals which my noble and learned friend has mentioned.

This is an interpretation which is well and firmly rooted in past practice. The term "reservoir" has been used in legislation for over a century and in no case has it been found necessary to exclude canals. This is a point which should be taken strongly into consideration. It has been understood throughout this time that canals are not embraced by the term "reservoir" and there has never been any indication to the contrary.

A case very much in point is of course the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act of 1930. During the 44 years that the Act has operated, there has been no suggestion that it covered canals and the British Waterways Board have not of course subjected their canals to inspection under the Act. There are no differences between the interpretation provisions of the 1930 Act and the Bill which are such as to introduce any doubt on the scope of the Bill in relation to canals. The Board have never thought it necessary to apply the requirements of the 1930 Act to their canals and it is hard to understand why they should feel concern about the Bill.

The first point I want to make therefore is that there is no need for any amendment to the Bill to make it clear that canals are not covered. I am also advised that the proposed Amendment would not just be unnecessary; it could indeed do harm by casting doubt both on the scope of the Bill generally and on the use of the term "reservoir" in other legislation. It would carry with it the very undesirable implication that the 1930 Act should be complied with in regard to the structures excluded. The 1930 Act is of course still in force and will continue to operate until any new legislation is commenced. It would surely be unwise to run this risk in the face of legal advice that it is entirely clear that the Bill as it stands does not apply to canals.

The term "reservoir" is defined in the Bill as a "reservoir for water as such". My noble and learned friend queried this phrase. It is one that I have been into carefully myself because I agree it is a rather technical expression. These words "for water as such" have the effect of excluding mine or quarry lagoons, which are sometimes raised above the level of the ground and do, in fact, contain some water. However, they are not designed to store water as such, which means water alone. The words in brackets—which state that the expression "reservoir for water as such" does not include a mine or quarry lagoon which is a tip within the meaning of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969—were included because the 1969 Act prescribed a safety code for such tips and it was thought right to indicate that the two codes laid down by Statute are not in contradiction.

Canals, by contrast, fall outside the scope of the Bill because they are not reservoirs. Here the addition of the words "for water as such" makes no difference in relation to canals and has no relevance to whether or not they are included in the Bill. This is one of the reasons why the Amendment of my noble and learned friend would detract from the definition rather than clarify it. I assure him that I have examined his point with great care. I am personally convinced that there is no need for the Board to have any fears whatsoever on the scope of the Bill. But, in view of the extremely courteous request he has made, and knowing how strongly he feels about this, I will take this matter back again for consideration. I suggest that this time it might be a good idea if he met with the Department's lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel so that there could be a face-to-face attempt to try to sort out what is obviously a rather knotty problem.

Lord STOW HILL

I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which she has dealt with this matter, and am entirely content. I will, of course, do anything that I can to assist in resolving what I accept is a knotty problem, and if anybody invites me to attend a meeting I shall be only too happy to do so. In the meantime, I should like sincerely and cordially to thank my noble friend for her courtesy and help, and ask the Committee for leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.33 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which I think follows directly from the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I would say at the outset that this is a probing Amendment designed to clarify the definition of the word "reservoir". Although I realise that the intention of the Bill is to bring up to date the legislation of the 1930 Act on the safety of reservoirs, nevertheless in this clause there is an extension of the definition of the word "reservoir" and it is important that we should get this definition right.

If I have properly understood the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has just elaborated on the reasons why canals would not be included in the present definition, it is largely because in the past legislation has always automatically excluded canals and, therefore, it can be assumed that it is doing so in this case and that they have a quite separate safety code. Suddenly, we have in Clause 1(2) of the Bill the intention to extend the definition of a "reservoir" to include a lake or a loch whether or not use is, or is intended to be, made of the water. So included in the definition of the word "reservoir" is an ornamental pond or an artificial lake or loch.

I am not in principle against an extension of the term 'reservoir" because I can well appreciate that in a Bill the intention of which is to increase the safety of reservoirs it is necessary—particularly in our crowded island—that any danger that there could be from seepage must, of course, be prevented. I entirely accept that. But what I say is that, despite the fact that this is so, this extension, so far as I can see, is not one of the suggestions which were made by the Committee on the Safety of Reservoirs on which the Bill is based and it has therefore been included at a later date. Not only is it something new that has been added, but it seems to me that it could be open to serious objections because a great many people will not be certain whether or not their ornamental lake is included.

I understand that the definition relates to the holding of more than 25,000 cubic metres of water. One finds that that is not a very large size if one does the arithmetic to arrive at what is to me much simpler to understand—the area at the top. The term could therefore by definition include the artificial lakes and ponds of many individuals, lakes and ponds belonging to institutions, and to universities; it could, of course, cover the kind of point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised—the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens. Municipal parks of all kinds, so far as I can see, might well find themselves suddenly covered by this definition. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to me that there is a difference in practical terms between an artificial lake in someone's grounds—perhaps, a National Trust property—and an artificially-created loch in the Highlands of Scotland. The dangers caused by one or the other would obviously be very different; if the water is simply emptying on to a moor, or is about to empty on to a village lying just below the estate where the artificial lake is situated. So it may well be that this also is a matter which should be examined and that the definition should be much more tightly drawn than simply relating to the volume of water artificially created. Given that there is to be an extension of the definition, there must be a great deal of publicity about this matter.

I was grateful for the long letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, wrote to me answering the points I raised on Second Reading, but it would be helpful to have on the Record the Government's intentions in this matter. Furthermore, it is necessary because of the time-scale. As I understand the Bill, once it becomes law, within nine months owners will be expected to inform the local authorities whether they come into this, or the local authorities, at any rate, will be expected to draw up their register, if not to have already completed it. This is a relatively short space of time. It would be unfortunate if private individuals or private institutions were unaware that they fell within the terms of this Bill.

I would also ask a question about the cost. If the definition of a reservoir is to be extended in this way, does it mean that the local authority pays for the collection of the information for putting these lakes or lochs on the register, or that the individual owner will pay for the tests that have to be made to find out whether they fulfil the requirements of the Bill? Who pays for the monitoring of these lakes, which under the terms of the Bill must be carried out at, I think, three-yearly intervals in the following years? I feel that these are very real, practical problems. May I say that this matter must be looked at again in order to draw more tightly the definition of a reservoir. As I said at the beginning, I am not myself against the extension, because I can see the point of it, but in fairness to the individuals and organisations which could be involved we really must get the definition right. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

The subsection which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, wishes to delete extends the Bill to any place where water is artificially retained to form or enlarge a lake or loch, and, as she pointed out, such artificial lake or loch will be affected by the Bill only if it is capable of holding more than 25,000 cubic metres of water above the level of any part of the adjoining land. I will not go again into the point on canals. I answered that point as fully as I could in reply to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. All that I would say is that the noble Baroness made reference to the fact that the only reason why it was accepted that canals should not form part of the Bill was because they had not been part of the Bill for many years.

However, there is another point. Canals are used for the purpose of transit, whereas reservoirs are not. This is another factor which differentiates canals from reservoirs. It seems to me that the effect of deleting the subsection would be to obtain a result which is quite contrary to the result which the noble Baroness wants. It would preserve the uncertainty of the 1930 Act as to whether artificial lakes are covered by the legislation.

The noble Baroness was quite right when she pointed out that the report of the Institution of Engineers, upon which so much of this Bill has been based, did not mention this specific point, but later it was felt, and, I think, felt quite rightly, that this particular section should be included. The deletion would not necessarily eliminate such structures from the scope of the Bill, because in 1964 the West Sussex County Council obtained an order under the 1930 Act requiring an inspection and report to be made on a hammer pond—a pond which was originally constructed to drive a hammer but which is now used for ornament or for fishing; or it may not be used at all. It seemed to be far tidier and also far safer to include such a pond in the new Bill because, as the noble Baroness herself pointed out, 25,000 cubic metres is not an enormous size, and the use made of a stretch of water does not necessarily make any difference to the dangers which it presents. If it is capable of bursting and flooding the surrounding land, an artificial lake is as dangerous as a water storage reservoir and may not, unless included, be subjected to the same rigorous supervision. It is true that many owners of ornamental lakes have complied with the requirements of the 1930 Act. but in bringing this Act up to date and in bringing in a new Bill in order to improve the standards of safety, it seems to us to make sense to enlarge the definition in this way.

The noble Baroness referred to the question of publicity, and I welcome the opportunity to put on record what the Government have in mind concerning publicity. May I therefore thank the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity. A wide range of interests has already been consulted on the Bill, and I can let any noble Lords who are interested have a copy of the list. They include the Confederation of British Industry, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Their members will presumably be made aware of the Bill through their membership of these organisations, and also the readers of a number of trade and technical publications in which the Bill has been reported.

However, after enactment we intend to take steps to publish guidance and to contact representative bodies. Under Clause 24(4) every local authority will have a duty to publicise the requirements for undertakers to notify the enforcement authority of reservoirs not later than nine months after the commencement of the Act. This duty will run for the first three months after commencement. If people are informed, together with the publicity that we intend to give to this, I do not think that nine months is a short time.

So far as cost is concerned, as I understand it the undertakers will notify the enforcement authorities of their reservoirs. That is not a very great cost. So far as notification is concerned, all that the local authorities have to do is to enter these in a register. With the exception, perhaps, of one or two local authority areas, one in England and one in Scotland, there is not a very large number of reservoirs in any local authority area, so this can involve only a small amount of clerical work.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not pressing her Amendment, which in any case I am afraid I should not be able to accept.

Viscount LONG

On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her answer to the Amendment of my noble friend. May I say that most of what I have written down has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lady Young. However, I come back to one point. I do not think that we are defining how big, or how large, or what area a reservoir should be. So far as I can see, we have 25,000 cubic metres written into the Bill. For my part, I feel that a better measurement could be taken, such as acreage or hectares, where not only the quantity of water would be included but also some measurement of how big or large a reservoir should be. I am very glad that we have dispensed already with the canal system because I feel that to try to bring in canals—canals being in such a bad way at the present time—would be asking for trouble. Therefore one isolates canals and looks just at lochs, swimming pools and areas of water. One looks at what height they should be, or how one should define them in height, and at whether they are at ground level, or whether they are raised reservoirs. When one looks at water, any water, the smallest pool, is a reservoir. Therefore in thanking the noble Baroness, may I leave her with those points.

Baroness BIRK

I thank the noble Viscount for his support over the question of canals. If I may deal with the point upon which he put a question, frankly, and without being by any means a technical expert on this, it seems to me to make sense to measure water in terms of water measurement. I do not think that I should be happy if people started to measure fields for me in cubic metres. May I rest my case on that.

Baroness YOUNG

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her answer to the various points which I have raised. It is now very much a question of looking at the record to see what she has said. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to press the Amendment, but it may well be that in the light of her answer we shall move another Amendment on Report.

Before we leave this Amendment, may I ask for one point about cost to be clarified? Am I right in thinking that in compiling the register and the subsequent monitoring of reservoirs, whether they are used for the storage of water or whether they are ornamental lakes or lochs, the cost does not fall upon the owner but falls upon the local authority? This is of particular importance to the private owner.

Baroness BIRK

As I understand it—and if by any chance I am shown to be wrong I will immediately let the noble Baroness know—the question of registering it with the local authority must be undertaken by the local authority and is a minimal clerical cost; it is done by employees who are already there. The noble Baroness spoke about monitoring. I think she was there referring to all the other clauses which cover what the undertakers have to do in the Bill—and that cost is covered by the undertakers.

Baroness YOUNG

In fact what the noble Baroness is saying is that the private individual would therefore have to pay for the regular inspections?

Baroness BIRK

That is so.

Baroness YOUNG

I think this is a very important point to get absolutely clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Registration of large raised reservoirs, and enforcement of Act, by local authorities]:

On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?

6.51 p.m.

Lord STOW HILL

I wish to raise a point on this clause because I submit that subsections (5) and (6) are quite unnecessarily obscure and complex. Clause 2 establishes the obligation on a local authority to keep a register, and subsection (3) provides that the local authority in whose area the reservoir is situated is to be what is subsequently described as the "enforcement authority", whose business it is to see that the obligations which the Bill creates are in fact carried out.

I should have thought that subsections (3) and (4) go a long way towards achieving the whole object that the Parliamentary draftsmen have in mind. Subsection (3) says that the local authority in whose area a reservoir is situated shall be the enforcement authority; subsection (4) deals with the case where the reservoir is in the area of several authorities, and it says that in that case the enforcement authority must be the authority among those that they agree upon or which is determined by the Secretary of State to be the appropriate enforcement authority. I should have thought that was what the clause was intended to do.

Then one proceeds into what I must confess is, in my view, quite unnecessarily obscure. I took steps to ask that an intimation might be given to my noble friend that I should be asking questions on these lines: can she really explain what the Parliamentary draftsmen desire to achieve by subsections (5) and (6)? In regard to subsection (5) I can see the purpose, although I must confess that I do not think it is very well expressed; subsection (6) seems to be wholly unnecessarily obscure, and I simply fasten on one aspect of it. I look at the words which are included in brackets at lines 9 and 10, and which read (and, where the context so requires. includes the authority that would be so charged if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir) I do not know whether my noble friend can indicate to me where it is that "the context so requires". Can she point to texts in this Bill which require that the authority should be the enforcement authority "if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir"? I thought that was always the case and I really cannot see the purpose of those words.

If my noble friend says that she is not precisely briefed on that I shall understand and I sympathise with her. But I think this is really—and I do not wish to mince my words—thoroughly bad drafting, and in raising this point on the Question, Whether the Clause stand part of the Bill? what I am really asking her to do is to take these two subsections back and to ask her advisers to consider them further, to see whether some degree of simplicity and intelligibility could be introduced into them, which at the moment seems to be absent. It really is not fair on the subject that he should be required to conform to the provisions of Acts of Parliament unless they are reasonably intelligible.

Baroness BIRK

I hope I can explain the meaning to my noble and learned friend. Curiously enough, I picked them out myself for some further explanation, and when I have given that explanation I am also quite prepared to take them back to have them looked at to see whether it is felt that they are in fact as clear as they should be.

Clause 2(5), to which my noble and learned friend referred, is, as I think he agreed, fairly clear. What it means is that where a reservoir extends into the area of more than one local authority they have to agree among themselves which is to be the enforcement authority. In other words, one must be the enforcement authority; the task cannot be shared. If, however, one of these authorities is the undertaker, Clause 2(5) ensures that this authority cannot be the enforcement authority upon its own reservoir. I should have thought that this made good sense and was also an important point so far as enforcement is concerned.

Clause 2(6), which I agree is a little more complicated, certainly for the layman, defines the term "enforcement authority" and ensures that a local authority cannot be the enforcement authority for a reservoir wholly within its area. The words in brackets to which my noble friend referred, which are:

(and, where the context so requires, includes the authority that would be so charged if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir)", are inserted to make clear that the enforcement authority has certain functions regarding structures which at the material time are not large raised reservoirs. For example, under Clause 21 undertakers have to inform local authorities of their intention to increase the capacity of a reservoir in order to make it a large raised reservoir. Under Clause 8 an enforcement authority which has reason to believe that a reservoir is being enlarged to make it a large raised reservoir but that no qualified civil engineer is responsible for the work, can take action against the undertakers to require them to appoint a qualified civil engineer.

I think I should add that if a local authority's reservoir extends into the territory of another local authority or authorities, then one of those other local authorities will be the enforcement authority under Clause 2(5). The local authority must report to the Secretary of State as to the way in which they have discharged their duties, both as undertaker and enforcement authority under Clause 3 of the Bill. This of course refers to where the reservoir is contained within the area of just one local authority and is in order to safeguard and control the position of the undertaker being the enforcement authority at the same time. In this way any shortcomings of undertakers of a reservoir entirely within their area would become known to the Secretary of State, who could order an inquiry. I think I should add that criminal liabilities under the Bill apply to local authorities as to other undertakers. I hope that has made the matter clear to my noble and learned friend.

Lord STOW HILL

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having taken all that trouble to expound the purpose of the draftsmen in choosing this language, but I hope that between now and Report she will give it further consideration to try to simplify this, I think, wholly unnecessarily complicated language.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Qualification of engineers]:

On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

7.0 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG

Clause 4 is, of course, a technical clause entirely concerned with the qualifications of the engineers. There are two specific points which I would like to ask, but before I do so I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will confirm that I am reading the Bill correctly. It says in subsection (1) that the panels shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, and he will be appointing them on the advice of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I think that is correct, but I should like to be assured of that.

The two specific points that have been put to me are for clarification of subsection (4), which sets out in considerable detail—more detail than the 1930 Act—the position of people appointed to these panels. Under subsection (4)(a), what happens if an engineer wishes to resign from one of the panels? Presumably he is entitled to do so. Although so much detail is spelt out this is not included. My second question is on subsection (4)(b) which might be read, at least by someone like myself, as a statutory extension of the terms of a contractual agreement, and therefore implies an extension of that agreement written into the Bill. I cannot think that that is what is intended. It is probable that I am not reading it correctly, but I should like to have an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that that is not so. If she cannot give me this very detailed information at this point, I shall be perfectly happy if she will write to me on the subject so that I can consider her reply before the next stage of the Bill.

Baroness BIRK

As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on subsection (4)(a) about an engineer resigning when he wishes, this must be the position. We could not possibly have a situation where someone did not have the right to resign if he wished so to do. But, obviously, it will be tied in the same manner as other appointments by the period of notice which is part of the agreement. The second point raised by the noble Baroness is a little more complicated, at least for me. I do not suppose that for the experts it is so complicated. Rather than taking an inspired guess—although I think I know the answer—I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness about it.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Certificates of construction engineers]:

7.3 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3: Page 7, line 26, leave out "(unless otherwise stated)".

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, with Amendment No. 4, is consequential on the substantive Amendment to Clause 20, which is Amendment No. 12 in the Marshalled List. With permission, I should now like to speak to all three Amendments. These three Amendments consist of a substantive Amendment to Clause 20 and two consequential Amendments. Clause 20 is headed, General provisions as to reports, certificates, etc., of engineers. Under Clause 20(5), as the Bill stands at present, where an engineer has been appointed after notice by the enforcement authority for the purposes of Clause 8, his certificate as to the execution of works which he has to send to the enforcement authority need not include the annex containing drawings and descriptions of works.

Although this annex is not strictly necessary to the enforcement function, we think it desirable that copies of it should be held by the enforcement authority, to ensure that essential information about a reservoir is not lost through change of ownership, or some other cause. Deletion of subsection (5) of Clause 20 would achieve this. This would be consistent with the requirement that a copy of the certificate of completion of works by the construction engineer, which he is required to send to the enforcement authority, must also be accompanied by the annex. Therefore the words, "unless otherwise stated" in Clauses 7 and 8 refer to the exclusion of the annex provided for in Clause 20(5). On deletion of the latter, to which I hope the Committee will agree, these words then become superfluous. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her explanation of this point which I think is quite clear. But I should like to ask one question on it. What happens in the case of a statutory authority or an undertaker which may not have the original documents? These may have become misplaced. After all, I believe that some reservoirs are of considerable age. What happens in such a case? This is no doubt a somewhat unlikely occurrence, but I can imagine it being possible. It does not particularly arise on Clause 20, but it does on Clause 24. It seemed to me that it was a point worth raising on this Amendment.

Baroness BIRK

It seems to me that when the documents are not in existence they cannot be produced or stored. There would just have to be notification that there was not an annex in a certain case, and that would have to be the end of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, herself pointed out, where these drawings and descriptions of works are available and in existence, but for which we have not made provision, they should be stored with the local authority.

On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount LONG

May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a short question on Clause 7? Clause 7(2) refers to a "construction engineer", but I notice that as the Bill goes on it moves from the term "construction engineer" to "civil engineer" and "engineer in charge". I am given to understand that in the previous Bill, or in the Institution of Civil Engineers, the terminology is just "engineer". I wonder whether the noble Baroness could enlighten me on this point, because unless we tidy up this Bill the authorities will not know which type of engineer is to be in charge or otherwise. It is a very small point, but perhaps the noble Baroness could clear it up.

Baroness BIRK

I take the point. It is perfectly true, at first glance, that there seem to be a great many labels attached to the engineer. It is quite clearly set out in the various clauses what are the functions of the engineer concerned, and it is the functions that vary according to the nature of the responsibility of the work. For instance, the object of the construction engineer is to design and supervise the construction or alteration of a large raised reservoir, and he or she would be appointed by the undertakers. The construction engineer will also have to issue certificates governing the filling and use of a large raised reservoir.

The inspecting engineer is the person who makes the periodical inspection and report, who is also appointed by the undertakers. The supervising engineer is the only one of the category who has what I think I would call a continuous job. It is his job to supervise the reservoir, advise the undertakers on safety aspects of its behaviour, and recommend when a special inspection is needed under Clause 10. He is also appointed by the undertakers.

The qualified engineer acts as a construction engineer in the event of noncompliance with the requirements as to construction or enlargement of reservoirs. I think I should say that we all realise that all these people are qualified engineers, but their functions vary and obviously their experience will vary as well. The qualified civil engineer is appointed by the undertakers in response to the enforcement authority's notice; this is under Clause 8. Under Clause 9, the qualified civil engineer has to make inspection and report on the re-use of an abandoned reservoir and issues certificates governing filling and use, and he also supervises the carrying out of safety methods recommended in the periodical inspection report. So if something results from an inspection engineer's report, then he has to see it is carried out and certify completion.

The 1930 Act requires the construction of reservoirs to be under the supervision of a qualified engineer, and requires the inspection of reservoirs at intervals of not more than ten years. There have been no difficulties about the supply of engineers for these duties, and we do not expect any difficulties over the supply of qualified engineers for the somewhat increased duties specified in the Bill.

I think the noble Viscount will find, as I am sure he has already, that all these different categories have been defined in the appropriate places in the Bill. I looked through it myself, because again at first glance it struck me that there are a lot of descriptive labels; but it seems to me that it is the right way to do it, because it does pin down in the various clauses what the function of the particular engineer is. If we had an overall generic phrase, "qualified engineer" or "qualified civil engineer", there would be a certain amount of doubt as to what their functions were under a particular clause.

Viscount LONG

May I thank the noble Baroness for that very able answer, because to go through the ranks of the consulting engineers or civil engineers is really something. I am most grateful to her for explaining it.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 [Powers of enforcement authority in event of non-compliance with requirements as to construction or enlargement of reservoirs]:

Baroness BIRK

I beg to move Amendment No. 4.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 6, leave out ("(unless otherwise stated)")—(Baroness Birk.)

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Periodical inspection of large raised reservoirs]:

7.14 p.m.

Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 6: Page 11, line 43, after ("effect") insert (", after consulting where practicable with the inspecting engineer who has made the recommendation,").

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deals with a small point, but I would submit it is a useful Amendment which would be likely to improve the working of the scheme embodied in the Bill. Clause 10 deals with the inspection engineers, and the Amendment which I propose relates to subsection (7) of Clause 10. That subsection provides that if an enforcement authority finds a situation in which—and I refer to paragraph (b)—the inspection engineer has made, … a recommendation as to measures to be taken in the interests of safety that has not been carried into effect as so required", it can serve a notice on the undertaker requiring the undertaker inter alia to carry out the recommendation contained in the inspecting engineer's report.

The Amendment which I would submit is desirable is one which would require the notice to specify that the recommendation is to be carried out by the undertaker after consulting where practicable with the inspecting engineer who has made the recommendation". I accept that sometimes it may be difficult, sometimes impossible, to get in touch with the inspecting engineer, and that therefore it is not practicable to make it an absolute obligation to consult him. All that my Amendment does is to try to prevent duplicity of thinking, to try to bring it about that when the undertaker complies with the notice its representative will first, at any rate, have spoken to or have had some sort of discussion with the inspecting engineer.

A recommendation is not always expressed in the fullest and most explicit terms, and it is felt by those with whom I have been able to consult that the Bill would work better if there is, not an absolute obligation to consult with the inspecting engineer, but that wherever practicable in the circumstances the engineer whom the undertaker appoints to carry out the requirements contained in the notice should consult with the inspecting engineer. I move the Amendment because I submit that it will improve the working of the Bill. It may well be said, "Obviously he would do that anyhow", but it is not unuseful in my submission to the Committee, to have, as it were, in the letter of the Act a reminder that such consultation is, where practicable, to be embarked upon. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

The principle on which the Bill is based, as my noble friend knows and indicated, is that all technical matters arising from the construction and maintenance of reservoirs should be entrusted to the qualified civil engineer. An enforcement authority which intended to serve a notice on an undertaker who has failed to carry out the recommendations would certainly need to seek the advice of a qualified civil engineer in fixing the time limits for the work. We have in fact had it in mind to advise enforcement authorities to do this in the guidance we propose to issue after enactment. Therefore, I am most certainly in agreement with the general purpose of my noble friend's Amendment.

It is not, however, if he will forgive my saying so, quite satisfactory in detail. The wording leaves a doubt as to whether it is the enforcement authority or the undertaker who has to consult the inspecting engineer. But, more important, it would be undesirable to limit in any way the discretion of the enforcement authority over which engineer to consult. The inspecting engineer might be unavailable, and there could be circumstances in which the enforcement authority thought it preferable to consult another engineer; for example, where a start had been made on work, this might be the engineer employed to supervise it. A preferable approach, I should have thought, would be to require the enforcement authority to consult simply a qualified civil engineer, leaving the choice to it. If my noble friend will agree to withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to put down a Government Amendment on these lines at a later stage.

Lord STOW HILL

I am most grateful to my noble friend for her extremely helpful answer, and I think that her arguments were convincing. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord STOW HILL

In line 27, on page 11, has not the word "that" been omitted in the expression "as soon as he is satisfied it is so"? It is a small point, but Parliamentary Counsel might just look at it.

Baroness BIRK

It seems right to me, but I think I had better take it back for examination by Parliamentary Counsel.

Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Supervision of large raised reservoirs]:

On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?

7.22 p.m.

Lord STOW HILL

I thought it better to seek to speak on the Question, That the clause stand part? rather than move the Amendment, because the Amendment docs not really achieve what the Board with which I consulted have in mind. What I would venture to say to your Lordships on the Question, That the clause stand part? is that the Board are concerned that this obligation imposed upon them with regard to the supervising engineer will impose a very considerable strain on them. They will not, so they believe—bearing in mind the wide scope of their responsibilities—be able to supply supervising engineers from engineers on their own staff. There are simply not enough of them, and the work would be beyond that which they could undertake. That would mean that they would have to look for engineers outside.

It is not easy to recruit engineers of this standing outside. No doubt it can be done in due course, but it would take time and, in addition, it would involve considerable expense. Therefore, I think it right to say to the Committee that the Board—I speak for the Board because they are the only undertakers with whom I have been in contact—will, of course, do their level best to comply with their obligations. However, they think it right to state now that it would probably mean that they would have to undertake considerable expense in excess of that which they are really able to carry at the moment, and that it may take time, and create difficulty, to recruit the additional staff that they would require to supply the necessary number of supervising engineers in addition to those engineers who are already on their staff.

Baroness BIRK

It is true that there will be a new panel of supervising engineers to carry out this function. I would point out that the qualifications for appointment to this panel have yet to be decided, but they are likely to be such that some engineers who are not qualified for appointment to the existing panels as inspecting engineers—possibly by reason of experience, or for other reasons—would qualify as supervising engineers. We must remember that it is also true that supervising engineers will undoubtedly each have responsibility for several reservoirs. We are not envisaging a situation where there is one engineer to one reservoir. It is impossible at the moment to know how many, since this would depend on the distribution of the reservoirs and the quality of supervision which exists at lower levels than that of the supervising engineer.

A supervising engineer could be an existing employee of an undertaking, which means that he would already be involved there in other work as well, or he may be employed in a part-time consultative capacity. In general, we anticipate that he will be an existing employee of the undertaking. We do not envisage that supervising engineers will necessarily have experience of designing and constructing dams. I shall not enlarge again on this point since I dealt partially with it in answering the noble Viscount, Lord Long.

Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to determine the qualifications for appointment to the panel of supervising engineers, and perhaps my noble friend will be reassured to know that these qualifications will be determined after consultation with interested bodies. We shall try to ensure that the qualifications are such that sufficient qualified people come forward for appointment without prejudicing the important part they have to play.

I can assure noble Lords that the points which have been raised will all be taken into consideration when determining the manner of appointment of supervising engineers. Speaking personally, I hope that there will be greater encouragement and opportunity for women to enter this field. One of the reasons why the Institution of Civil Engineers support the provision that the supervising engineers should not be independent—which was the substance of the Amendment that my noble friend was good enough to withdraw—is so that the construction engineer would be able to become the supervising engineer in the early years of the reservoir's life. Finally, I should point out that the Institution of Civil Engineers, in its report, recommended the appointment of supervising engineers. I have confirmed that they are well aware of the contents of the Bill, and they have not expressed a view that insufficient supervising engineers will be available. I feel that if there had been any disquiet about this point, then the Institution of Civil

Engineers would certainly have contacted us about it, but we have received no representations.

Baroness YOUNG

I am very glad to have that explanation because, in view of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Long on this complicated series of definitions of an engineer, it is important that we shall not have, as I understand it, the possibility of yet another definition being introduced of one who might be an outsider and not a construction engineer, a supervising engineer, or a qualified engineer within the meaning of the Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has a point, because there is a great variation in the numbers of reservoirs in different parts of the country. I understand that some water authorities have up to 100 reservoirs in their area, and therefore they will require many more of these people than other authorities. In the drawing up of these panels, it will be necessary for there to be enough people in the right areas for them to be able to do that work. Can we have the assurance of the noble Baroness on this point?

Baroness BIRK

It is very difficult at this stage for me to give a detailed assurance so far as different areas are concerned. The numbers of reservoirs within different local authority areas vary enormously. But taking into account, as I have already said, the consultations with the bodies concerned and the note we are taking of the comments which have been made during Second Reading and at this Committee stage, I think I must come back to the overriding purpose of the Bill, which is to improve the safety standards of reservoirs. We have to start from that point, and from there discover the best way to find and equip the necessary supervising engineers. At this stage I have no reason to believe that any difficulties are envisaged.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Emergency Powers]:

7.30 p.m.

Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 8: Page 15, line 37, after ("reservoir") insert (", after first consulting with the undertakers where practicable,")

The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is very much on a par with the Amendment which I moved a moment ago. It requires that the enforcement authority, when it decides that emergency action is necessary, shall first consult with the undertakers concerned. That wording is qualified by the addition of the words "where practicable". I accept at once that you may have emergency action which is necessary and which must be taken at once, and that any question of consulting anybody cannot be seriously entertained. On the other hand, the urgency may not be as great as all that, and those with whom I have consulted point out to me that when you operate reservoir safety precautions and have to bear in mind the volume of water, the escape provisions for water and the area to which the water is to be permitted to escape in case of need, a great deal of expertise is required. It is all one scheme, and knowledge as to the features of the scheme is in the assumed circumstances, possessed, almost exclusively, by the undertakers themselves.

In those circumstances, again it was thought that the Bill would work better if, when there arises the question of emergency measures to be taken, those who decide to take them should, before they embark on the task of carrying out the emergency measures, at least where practicable contact the undertakers and ask what are the relevant circumstances which they should bear in mind in deciding how to deal with the emergency. That is what the Amendment does. It does not, I submit, impose any unreasonable burden on anybody, and because the words "where practicable" are present, it does not inhibit the enforcement authority from carrying out at once necessary measures in order to eliminate all delay, and proceeding at once to carry out the safety precautions. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say on this matter. It touches on a point I raised on Second Reading, about the necessary staff which an enforcement authority must have. The enforcement authorities under this Bill are the local authorities, county councils, the GLC and the district and island authorities in Scotland, and they are most unlikely themselves to have this kind of highly qualified staff, a point I think which was accepted by the Government when we discussed this on Second Reading. We all hope that it will be extremely unlikely that they will have to deal with emergencies or enforcement in this way. I quite accept, and I think I am right in saying, that there has been no emergency since the 1930 Act. Nevertheless, this provision is quite rightly written into the Bill, and it seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is a very practical one. It appears to be a very sensible suggestion that wherever possible the undertakers should be consulted, because almost certainly they will have the staff and will know all about the reservoir in question. I hope the noble Baroness will very seriously consider these points.

Baroness BIRK

With respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, this is not anything like the same as his Amendment to Clause 10. Clause 16 deals with emergency powers, which is an entirely different situation. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, very unlikely that a reservoir supervised and inspected as required by the Bill would suddenly become so unsafe as to require emergency action. If it did, it is likely that the undertakers would be the first to hear of it. If the news reached the enforcement authority first, it would get in touch with the undertakers immediately—it would be almost a reflex action. We cannot, however, fetter it in such a way as to create delay in the exercise of its emergency functions. We are talking only of circumstances in an emergency, which makes the situation quite different from that raised on other clauses and by the noble Baroness on Second Reading.

To make it a statutory requirement that the authority should consult "where practicable" with the undertaker before taking any action, would open the way to subsequent dispute as to whether the authority had done all it could to contact the undertaker, and to cover itself the authority might be inclined to delay taking action while continuing its attempt to contact the undertakers. I submit that where lives may be at stake an inhibition of this kind is not acceptable. I urge the Committee to recognise that we are talking of something which we hope will never happen but which would be a situation of such emergency that there should be no hampering. I think that would be the unfortunate result if an Amendment of this sort were accepted. Therefore, regretfully I have to resist my noble and learned friend's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Powers of entry]:

7.38 p.m.

Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 10: Page 17, line 23, after ("entry") insert ("(which where practicable specifies the nature of the works to be carried out)").

The noble and learned Lord said: This, again, is not dissimilar from previous Amendments I have moved. Clause 17 deals with the case in which the emergency authority authorises its representative to go upon the undertaker's property in order to discharge the functions specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1). All that the Amendment does—and again I stress that it is very modest, but I hope not unuseful—is to require that the representative— where practicable specifies the nature of the works to be carried out Paragraph (d) provides that the representative may enter the land in question— for the purpose of carrying out any survey or other operation needed to determine whether any or what measures should be taken under section 16 above. …

It is not unuseful, I would submit, supposing a situation has developed in which the enforcement authority may feel that some sort of emergency action is necessary under Clause 16, that it should be able in consequence to send in to the land its authorised representative to survey the situation and decide what measures ought to be taken in order to deal with the emergency. If that is the situation which is envisaged it is not unreasonable to provide that that representative, when he goes on the land, should give some indication to the undertaker as to what works he has in mind and what type of operation may be involved. It may greatly help him, it would avoid ignorance on his part which may be no fault of his but which may hamper him in lighting on the best method of approach, and it would generally promote an interchange of information which cannot be unuseful. That is the simple purpose of this very modest Amendment. Again it is qualified by the words "where practicable" which are the important words. I would submit that it would improve the Bill and I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

My noble friend has clearly explained the effect of this Amendment. I will say only that its purposes are that the enforcement authority has power to enter upon land and where notice of intended entry has to be given under Clause 17 to determine whether a reservoir is classified within the ambit of the Bill, and to exercise the reserve powers in Clause 15. It would be surprising if in either of these situations the undertaker was unaware of why the enforcement authority wanted to enter upon his land. But the normal practice would be for the authority to indicate the reason in its notice of intended entry.

If an authority were to serve a notice without a reason being given, the undertaker would be likely to refuse entry. This would lead the authority to seek a warrant from a justice of the peace under Clause 17(5), who would then have to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for entry. However, while I believe that the way in which the Bill is drafted should not cause undertakers to fear unreasonable behaviour on the part of enforcement authorities, I am wholly in sympathy with the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment. If he will agree to withdraw it I shall arrange for a Government Amendment to be tabled at a later stage, simply because, unfortunately, due to lack of time—and through no fault of my noble friend—the drafting has not yet been considered as carefully as we should wish.

Lord STOW HILL

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for yet one more of her helpful answers. In view of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [General provisions as to reports, certificates etc. of engineers]:

7.42 p.m.

Baronness BIRK moved Amendment No.11: Page 20, line 19, at end insert—— ( ) Where an enforcement authority receive a certificate of an engineer acting for the purposes of section 13 above or a copy of such a certificate, and the reservoir is situated partly in the area of another local authority not being the undertakers, the enforcement authority shall send a copy of the certificate to that other local authority.

The noble Baroness said: This is a simple and short Amendment. Clause 13 provides that where a large raised reservoir is altered, under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer who certifies that the alteration has been completed satisfactorily, and it is no longer capable of holding more that 25,000 cubic metres, the enforcement authority shall remove it from its register. The Amendment ensures that when the altered reservoir extends into the areas of other local authorities, they will receive a copy of the engineer's certificate and will, therefore, remove the reservoir from their register. This is a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I have already referred to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 20, leave out subsection (5).—(Baroness Birk.)

Clause 21 [Duty of undertakers to furnish information]:

Baroness BIRK

This is a drafting Amendment. Since the provisions of the Bill apply only to large raised reservoirs, it is necessary to insert the word "raised." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 4, after "large" insert "raised".—(Baroness Birk.)

7.45 p.m.

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 21, line 26, at end insert— ( ) with copies of the reports made by inspecting engineers on any statutory inspection of the reservoir; and".

The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 together. The effect of these two Amendments will be to ensure that any engineer appointed for the purposes of this legislation shall have available to him the inspecting engineer's reports on any statutory inspection. As the Bill stands at present there is possible ambiguity in paragraph (c), suggesting that only the report of the last inspection may be required and only if the engineer asks for it. By these Amendments the engineer will have a picture of the behaviour of the reservoir over as long a period as possible. In addition, they will make it clear that the Bill keeps the corresponding provision of the 1930 Act unchanged. I beg to move.

Baroness BIRK

I beg to move Amendment No. 15.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 28, leave out from "require" to end of line 29.—(Baroness Birk.)

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Notification to local authorities of existing reservoirs]:

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16: Page 23, line 35, leave out from "it" to end of line 36.

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is the same as that of the Amendment to Clause 20(5); that is, to ensure that the enforcement authority has an opportunity to copy any drawings and descriptions of works. Although this is not strictly necessary to the authority's enforcement function, it is a safeguard against loss of this information through change of ownership. I beg to move.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Reservoirs constructed before commencement of previous Act];

Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17: Page 25, line 27, leave out from "above" to end of line 28.

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is of the same pattern as those which I have previously moved. Its purpose is the same as that of the Amendments to Clause 20(5) and Clause 24(2)(b); that is, to ensure that the enforcement authority has an opportunity to copy any drawings or descriptions of works. Although this is not strictly necessary to the authority's function, it is a safeguard against loss of this information through change of ownership. I beg to move.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.