Lords Sitting of 12 April 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Small Firms: Assistance Schemes
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that schemes for assisting small firms are fully publicised.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, experience has shown that not only the owner-managers of small businesses but also the bank managers, accountants and solicitors to whom they often turn for advice are less than fully aware of the various schemes available to assist small businesses. Research has confirmed this view. The Government, therefore, decided to engage the services of an advertising agency to mount a major publicity campaign through television and the national press to publicise among managers of existing small businesses and the professions the 86 schemes of assistance set up by successive Governments to help the small firms sector. This campaign started on 18th March and will continue until June. Concurrently with the advertising campaign, 100 regional seminars are being held for members of the professions to brief them on the schemes.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that very comprehensive reply. Can he further tell us whether schools are being kept informed of these different schemes which are available, because youngsters leaving school do have problems? Further, can my noble friend say why, when these businesses are established, red tape is so excessive for them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not have the details with me as to what is being done specifically for schools but I shall certainly find out and let my noble friend know. Red tape—form—filling-is something which is kept constantly under review and it is something which the Government have acted on. Over one million forms have been saved in the past few years. Of course the Government will do all that they can to keep formalities to a minimum.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I wonder whether I can ask the Minister if he will ask the advertising agency, or whoever is in charge of this campaign, to draw attention to the help which the enterprise agencies, business ventures and other organisations of the private and public sectors, working together, can give to the small businesses in this country?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the views of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are the Government not in danger of putting too much confidence in the work of advertising agencies?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I detect a certain barb in the noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, surely we are not going to have an advertising agency. In this occasion the great advantage which the Government can confer on private enterprise is getting their publicity free.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact remains that over the years successive Governments have set up many schemes to help small businesses. The message has not got across to all of them. They are not aware of what is available. That is why the Government are now mounting this publicity campaign.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister consider setting up some kind of consultancy agency to co-ordinate all the activities that are going on? It is all very well for the Minister to say that there is an advertising agency that is doing the work for him, but just look at the papers in my hand! These are from the advertising agency with all the information there; but the trouble and frustration that a small businessman finds in going to one agency is that he is passed on to the next agency, and so it goes on. This is where the red tape comes in. Will the Minister consider my request to set up some kind of co-ordination?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that the scheme is really working as badly as the noble Lord suggests. The first three weeks of advertising resulted in some 70,000 responses, which I do not think is at all bad. In fact, we expect the number of responses to increase further as it becomes more widely known.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, might not the greatest help to small businesses be to stimulate the economy out of the trough in which it finds itself?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, one of the ways that we shall improve the economy is to encourage small businesses, and that is the point of the exercise.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, referring to red tape, does the noble Lord not think that we should get on better if blue tape were reduced?
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, in addition to drawing attention to anything that may be done in relation to the schools, may I suggest to the Minister that it would be much more important to be quite sure that the colleges of further education are fully apprised of the opportunities?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said to my noble friend Lady Sharpies, I shall certainly make sure that the whole question of schools and further education is looked at.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before embarking on the expenditure of taxpayers' money on a further advertising campaign, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the schemes have received very good publicity indeed, and that all that is really necessary is the exercise by those that read the publicity of the ordinary principles of free enterprise?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. Free enterprise includes advertising. That is what firms are allowed to do. The total cost of the campaign will be about £2.5 million. It is a very small proportion—less than 1 per cent.—of the total amount made available annually by the Government to the small firms' sector.

International Economic Co-operation
2.43 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what provisions have been made for further discussion of the proposals by the non-aligned nations for the establishment of a new international economic order.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the economic declaration issued by the recent non-aligned summit in New Delhi contains a number of proposals that are likely to be raised by non-aligned countries at UNCTAD VI, which meets in Belgrade in June. The non-aligned summit has requested Mrs Gandhi, as chairman of the movement, to arrange further contacts with the Governments of industrialised countries as she sees fit.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. May I ask whether he would not agree that the decisions at the new New Delhi conference should be very seriously considered, in view of the fact that they affect nearly two-thirds of the population of the world? In view of the comparative deadlock in the discussions between North and South over a period of 10 years, leaving 30 million people annually dying from hunger in the third world, would the Minister not agree that it is necessary to supplement the policy of aid with new economic relationships? In view of the fact that such relationships were decided on 40 years ago at Bretton Woods, before the new nations had their independence, is it not desirable to seek relationships based on partnership, rather than those weighted on the side of the industrialised nations—partnership which would include control of the financial institutions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me, first, whether the proposals put forward at the non-aligned summit do not show the need for a new international economic order. My answer to that is that I think that the present international economic and financial institutions have served the world well. The international financial institutions have coped
96
with the recent strains in the world economy, and the Government believe that the present system should be strengthened and adapted to meet changing requirements as they arise. Uprooting the institutions which we already have would not, we believe, be in the interest of developing or industrialised countries. Secondly, the noble Lord asked me about the relationship between North and South. I very much hope that UNCTAD VI will not result in unproductive confrontation between North and South. I give the noble Lord an assurance that the British Government will certainly be ready to discuss proposals in a constructive and realistic manner.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that Her Majesty's Government believe in strengthening the existing agencies. Would the noble Lord not agree that one of the most important steps which could be taken would be to strengthen the IMF debt facility? Will he confirm that the facility has recently been strengthened, though only by a very small amount? Will he also confirm that the third world debt at present stands at about £626 billion? Can he say whether or not Her Majesty's Government are intending to make specific proposals at Belgrade to strengthen the facility, and can he also say whether this matter will be on the table at Williamsburg as well?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I must say that I am not sure that I would entirely agree that the IMF facilities have been increased only in a small way. My understanding is that IMF quotas are to be increased by 47 per cent., and the general arrangements fund—which I think is sometimes referred to as the GAB—is to be made available to non-industrialised countries if there is a threat to international financial institutions. I think that both of those things are valuable. So far as further moves on the IMF are concerned, this point must wait until we get to Belgrade for UNCTAD, but I give the noble Lord an assurance that we are now thinking very carefully indeed about how to approach the UNCTAD meeting, and of course we shall bear in mind what he has just said to me.
Lord Oram: My Lords, in regard to these matters, will not the Williamsburg conference be even more crucial than the UNCTAD conference, and will not all these questions of international economic policy be on the agenda at Williamsburg? Can the Minister say what will be the position about British representation at Williamsburg, if, as now seems likely, the conference coincides with a British General Election?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the state of the world economy and prospects for lasting recovery will most certainly be on the agenda for the Williamsburg summit. Any question of an Election taking place at that time is a matter for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in wishing the Minister good fortune on his forthcoming visit, may I ask him whether the Government have reached a decision on the proposal which Mrs. Indira Gandhi has made to

97
the British Government, and other governments, that Heads of State should meet at the United Nations' General Assembly in September to consider the world situation and review the decisions made at the UNCTAD conference? Will the industrialised nations consider this proposal when they meet at Williamsburg?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have no doubt that it will be considered, but we are full of meetings. We have the OECD ministerial meeting, UNCTAD and the Williamsburg summit. That is quite a lot to be going on with.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider two propositions and respond to them? Will he agree that the future influence of Britain in the world may very well be determined by our willingness to work with, instead of against, the non-aligned countries? Secondly, will he agree that one of the ways in which this country can emerge and dig itself out of the present recession is by working economically much more closely with the developing nations than it has done in the past?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the premise of the noble Lord's first question. I have already given Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos the facts, as I understand them, about the IMF. In addition, the World Bank is discussing a special action programme to speed up disbursements and, through structural lending, to enable developing countries to do more to improve their own economies—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in the House about two weeks ago. Her Majesty's Government, whatever the party in power, play their part in the IMF and in the affairs of the World Bank. The finger cannot be pointed at the United Kingdom for failing to try to do its best through the international financial agencies. As the noble Lord knows very well, about 68 per cent. of our overseas aid goes to the poorest of the developing countries. That is as it should be.

Cultural Property: UNESCO Convention
2.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in asking for leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, may I correct a minor error that has crept into the last line of the Question as printed on the Paper. The Question should not read, "whether they will not ratify it" but, "whether they will now ratify it".
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property has not been ratified by the United Kingdom, and whether they will now ratify it.
Lord Belstead: Her Majesty's Government have always been in sympathy with the aims of the convention, but ratification poses administrative, legal and financial difficulties and would require legislation. The Government are still studying these difficulties.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, not only this Government but previous Governments have studied this matter for a long time. As many other Governments have found it possible to overcome the difficulties and to ratify—including, I believe, fairly recently, the United States—do the Government not think it appropriate to examine the matter with more urgency?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, so far as urgency is concerned, the noble Lord knows very well that he was a distinguished Minister for the Arts in the previous Government and that nothing whatever was done about this matter at that time. The reason why nothing was done is that the problems are formidable.

Space Warfare: Consultations with U.S. Government
2.54 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what "close consultations" they are having with the United States Government about President Reagan's declaration on space warfare, in view of his express recognition of the need for such consultations.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in our regular bilateral meetings with the United States Administration and at NATO consultative meetings we shall have extensive opportunities to consult the United States Government about strategic defence and the suggestions made by President Reagan on 23rd March. These consultations began in the course of the briefings on START which General Rowny and his deputy, Ambassador Goodby, gave to the North Atlantic Council on 30th March.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in using these extensive opportunities, will the Government concentrate particularly on two problems? What is to happen during the period between the time when the United States achieves a space-based beam weapon system against incoming ballistic missiles and furnishes one to the Soviet Union (according to the United States' expressed intention) and ourselves and America's other allies around the world achieving it—a period during which they will be protected and Japan and ourselves will not be protected? The second problem is this. Given that everyone knows that the development of such a system will take at least 30 or 40 years, will the Government press President Reagan's Administration for their present timetable on disarmament talks—
A noble Lord: Reading!
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I, by leave of the House, quote the President of the United States? Given the President's statement that the elimination of the threat of strategic nuclear missiles by this system
"would pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the weapons themselves",

99
does the United States really mean that strategic arms control must wait for 30 or 40 years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should like to underline the fact that the President has not proposed any change of strategy in the short term. He is initiating a major review of the future of defensive systems, on which he intends to assess whether alliance security—and I underline those two words—can be based on such an approach. Therefore, for the noble Lord to ask me about a period of time when some particular defensive system might be brought into effect for some countries and not for others is not a matter to which the President addressed his remarks.
The answer to the noble Lord's second question is very brief. While these researches are going ahead, the alliance will continue to pursue the path of peace through trying to achieve balanced and verifiable agreements on disarmament.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, does the Minister recognise—I am sure that he does—the great importance of this Question on space warfare? Will he accept that the Oscar-winning film "Gandhi"—and I am sure that noble Lords congratulate all concerned with the film—is a recognition of the example and the life of Gandhi, which many people see as being in direct contrast to international defence policies that seem to be hurtling the world towards destruction? Will the Minister express to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister the sincere hope of, I am sure, many millions that she and other world leaders will take stock of defence policies so that, in due course, she and others may, like Gandhi, be the subject of international acclaim?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this Question relates to President Reagan's proposal. Anything that contributes to East-West strategic stability can only be in the interests of the alliance as a whole and, indeed, of security as a whole. When the noble Lord asks a question making clear that what he wants is peace, my reply on behalf of the Government is: Yes, peace based on security. Security can only be based upon balanced and verifiable agreements on arms reductions.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, are the Government really saying that we must take these fantastic ideas of space wars in 30 years' time seriously in the context of negotiations for the elimination of nuclear armaments?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is long-term research. It does not touch on the specific proposals being put forward in the disarmament talks at the present time.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the President may be less of an embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government in outer space than he is in the Middle East?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the President's proposals were far-reaching and I think they were put forward in good faith. It is a pity that,
100
very often, the President's proposals on matters of arms control are not treated in that way by the Russians.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, will the Government clearly say whether they are in favour or against the ending of weapons in outer space in view of the fact that last December, in the United Nations Assembly, they failed to support a motion for ending weapons in outer space?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we operate within the outer space treaty of 1967, which prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapon of mass destruction in space. In December last year we supported a United Nations resolution calling upon the Committee on Disarmament to consider the creation of a working group to study possible arms control measures in space.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, as in other contexts President Reagan has always insisted upon the necessity of private discussions between the USA and the USSR before public statements, there is a strong suspicion that this particular statement is made for propaganda purposes and is not intended quite as seriously as he suggests?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, a suspicion that is unfounded.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Mansfield will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Secondary Education (Scotland). This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Lyell who will repeat a Statement on Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Report stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Hire-Purchase (Increase of Limit of Value) (Great Britain) Order 1983 will be taken.

Ports (Reduction of Debt) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Medical Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a consolidation Bill. It brings together the provisions of the Medical Act 1956 which was, at its time, itself a consolidation Act, and the Acts of the same title of 1969 and 1978 which made extensive amendments to that consolidation Act. The Bill also takes account of the effects on the existing law of the Medical Qualifications EEC

101
Recognition Order 1977 and several other statutory instruments.
The preparation of the consolidation Bill brought to light a number of technical defects in the existing law. To achieve a sound consolidation of the law this Bill accordingly incorporates amendments recommended by the two Law Commissions of England and Scotland in their reports numbered respectively 120 and 77 which were published and laid before your Lordships' House on 24th March. I should perhaps explain that, through an oversight, the reports of the Law Commissions appeared with the word "draft" inadvertently included in the title page. They were, in fact, final reports. The amendments are all of a technical nature and unless any noble Lord objects the Bill will go in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Water Bill
3.4 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 7. I first of all owe the House an apology for having sprung this Motion on your Lordships at very short notice and with a small amount of consultation with only a few Members. I shall seek to explain the purpose of the Motion in a moment, but first I should like to deal with a misapprehension which has occurred in the mind of the Chief Whip and which may, therefore, have occurred in the minds of a few others of your Lordships and of which I should like to dispose.
Your Lordships, or those of you who were dealing with the Water Bill, will remember that when we last came to debate Clause 7 a number of us, including myself, registered a mild note of complaint that it was getting late at night, the House was thin and it would be much better to adjourn the discussion and return to Clause 7, which many of us regard as one of the most important in the Bill, on some other occasion. I would hasten to say that my Motion to re-commit Clause 7 has nothing whatever to do with that, because if it were to arise out of that then of course we should be creating a precedent and any noble Lord who was aggrieved at the way matters of great concern to him were being dealt with in the House would claim it as a precedent for re-committing a Bill. I entirely agree with the Chief Whip that that would be most undesirable. The explanation for this Motion is really quite different and I shall come to it now.
First, I should like to point out that Clause 7 is a most important clause. Other clauses contain provisions that are important for other people. Clause 6 is important for local authorities, Clause 5 is important for British contractors seeking business overseas and so on, but from the point of view of its being something which Parliament must itself be
102
concerned about and take great care with, I think that Clause 7 is the most important. It is the clause which sets up consumer consultative councils in order to ensure that the consumers of the regional water authorities' services can have their complaints, their anxieties and their interests safeguarded and properly catered for. That is something which is not generally done to anybody's great satisfaction in any nationalised industry, and we must exert ourselves to see, if we possibly can, that in this case it is done properly.
The sequence of events which has led me and a few others to invite the House to consider whether re-commitment is not desirable is a matter to which I shall come in a minute. First I should like to read the Companion to the Standing Orders where it sets out the circumstances to which re-commitment is appropriate and then leave it to the House to judge whether the circumstances which have occurred in this case justify the action. I shall read an extract from the passage on re-commitment in the Companion, where it says among other things:
"Bills have been re-committed where important amendments were tabled in Committee of the Whole House too late for them to be properly considered at that stage,"—
those are not the circumstances here—
"or where amendments, on a subject which had not been considered in Committee, were tabled at a later stage and required detailed examination. Decision on such amendments may then be reached on Re-commitment".
What has happened is this. We had our debate on Clause 7 on Tuesday, 8th March, in the course of which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale indicated that he had a brief containing a lot of information which he offered to read. He was not particularly inclined to read it, and the House was content to leave it unread on the understanding that he would write to us all about it. We then had a brief discussion on how those matters might be brought to the attention of the whole House. I suggested a reference in the Official Report which was not accepted, but at any rate we moved away from Clause 7 on the understanding that we should hear from the noble Lord. I think that we were left with the impression that what it was he had to say to us was actually in his notes in front of him at that time. That may or may not have been so. But in fact we next heard about the matter by way of a response from my noble friend in a Written Answer which he gave to a Parliamentary Question in the name of my other noble friend Lady Trumpington. The answer was dated Tuesday 29th and it appeared and was published for all to see in Hansard of 30th March. It contained a number of substantive matters of considerable importance to Clause 7.
But your Lordships will recall that Wednesday 30th March was our last sitting day. The Hansard published on that day was not of course available until the following day and could not reach anybody, except those who had been in receipt of the original letter, until after the Recess began. The first working day after the Easter holiday was Tuesday 5th April and by that time the House was in Recess, when consultations with people are very difficult. My noble friend Lord Bellwin has been in America all this time and we did not resume our Sittings until yesterday, 11th April. It seems to me that those circumstances are close enough to the circumstances for which the Companion to the Standing Orders provides a re-commitment.

103
We have five amendments down to Clause 7. Two of them, Nos. 13 and 16, are not entirely new but only new in part; three of them are entirely new. However, the point is not the newness or the novelty of the amendments, but the fact that that letter, not despatched until three weeks after the Committee stage when we were rather expecting to receive it a day or two after it, contains material which provides an entirely new context for the discussion of Clause 7. In my view that is why the provisions in the Companion to the Standing Orders ought to be invoked—in order that we can have a detailed examination of these important matters in the new context which that letter creates.
There is another Motion standing in my name in the Marshalled List between Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which reads:
"that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee to debate amendment 13".
As between these two Motions—the one I am now moving and that one—the second makes provision for a debate, in the form of a Committee debate, of my amendment only; whereas the Motion I now move makes provision for all five amendments to Clause 7 to be debated, as it were, in Committee, and for a free discussion to take place with your Lordships free to speak more than once and, if necessary, for another interval before the Report stage.
I hope that the explanation is reasonably clear as to why I think we should consider the re-commitment of the Bill in respect of this clause, and I am more than glad to put myself in the hands of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 7.—(Lord Sandford.)
Lord Melchett: My Lords, perhaps I can just add a few words as I have an amendment down to Clause 7 which is supplementary to the Marshalled List. It was tabled late for exactly the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has put forward; namely, that I did not see the Written Answer until very late in the day—indeed, until just before the week-end. That Written Answer contains words which I thought contradicted what was said at the Committee stage and which led to my tabling an amendment to try to clarify the matter.
It seems to me that the Written Answer introduces a whole series of entirely new factors which, to some extent, went against what was said during the Committee stage. If the noble Lord's Motion is passed, I would certainly very much welcome an opportunity for a fuller debate on my amendment which is supplementary to the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 16A to Clause 7, than will be possible if it is taken during a Report stage of the Bill.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Like the noble Lord, I recall how late the debate was on the consumer clauses and we obviously did not go into a great deal of discussion. I think we were all led to believe that the noble Lord who answered would, as is the normal practice (which
104
for some reason or other did not operate in these circumstances), have written to us within perhaps two or three days with the comments that would have been given to us as answers. We did not even get them in that way as direct participants in the debate, which I think is remiss of the Government.
Instead, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who was not present in the debate at that late hour, tabled a Question for Written Answer which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, answered and, in so doing, completely changed the whole issue which we were discussing at the Committee stage. For that reason, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, because the whole of what we discussed in Committee has been completely changed by the Written Answer to the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, at a very much later stage and during the Recess.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister replies, perhaps it might be helpful to him to know that my noble friends on these Benches would also wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in the efforts that he is making to ensure full and free debate on these very new matters, matters of substantial importance in this Bill. Therefore, we congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on having discovered this device to enable us to do something which we regard as very necessary indeed, and we hope that he will be successful in it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we, too, support the Motion.
3.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, Clause 7 of the Water Bill was debated in Committee of your Lordships' House on 8th March when amendments were moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford and other noble Lords. This followed references to the clause at Second Reading and debates on it in another place.
In replying at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale proposed that, in view of the lateness of the hour, he would, if the Committee so wished, abbreviate his remarks and would undertake to let the House know later what he would have said if there had been sufficient time. The Committee agreed that this would be the best course and my noble friend withdrew his amendment with that assurance.
The further points which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale would have made in his speech were set out in the reply given on 30th March to a Parliamentary Question tabled by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. My noble friend in his reply explained the reasons why the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to write the provisions for the new committees into the Bill. He also explained that the draft guidelines would be revised in the light of comments received and a number of commitments made during the passage of the Bill, and that they would be reissued for a further short period of consultation. His reply listed the main changes already decided upon.
I should like to make one main point about my noble friend's Written Answer. There is very little in it

105
which is new to your Lordships' House or, indeed, to Parliament, and there I certainly differ with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Of the five main changes to the guidelines listed in the Answer, no fewer than four reflected previous undertakings made to this House or the other place. Therefore, it can hardly be said that we are bouncing a new statement of policy onto your Lordships. Moreover, in agreeing to a fresh round of consultation on a revised draft of guidelines we are keeping open options not only for your Lordships but also for the wide range of bodies outside which have a major interest in these matters. So we cannot be said to be forcing the pace and preventing full discussions.
Let us look briefly at my noble friend's new amendment, Amendment No. 13, because it is relevant to this whole point. Most of what it says has been considered in debates in the other place, or answered in our Parliamentary reply. To the extent that the new amendment raises new issues, or indeed to the extent that noble Lords wish to debate issues already discussed or the question of writing the provision for committees into the Bill, we are prepared for a debate at Report stage. But I would re-emphasise the extent to which debate has already taken place. There was indeed discussion at Report stage in the other place of an amendment very similar in concept to the one which is tabled today, and that was moved by a vice-president of the Association of District Councils. There was discussion at Committee stage in the other place of some of the issues of principle arising; for example, the right of nominating bodies to appoint, and access of press and public to meetings.
We cannot therefore accept that there is anything in today's amendment which is so radically new as to justify the unusual step of sending Clause 7 back into Committee, thus delaying proceedings on a Bill which your Lordships' House has already had considerable time to debate. There are few Bills on which the Government have shown more flexibility than this one. In response to what was said at Second Reading we agreed to restore in full the jurisdiction of the local ombudsman over water authorities. We have agreed at different times to other significant changes in Clause 1, Clause 5, Clause 6 and Clause 7—and may I remind your Lordships that this is an 11-clause Bill. We have agreed to a number of major changes in many other ways.
I feel I cannot accept that there has been inadequate time for consideration, discussion and representation. We wanted to consider carefully what my noble friend was putting forward, and I think perhaps three weeks was longer than one might have wished for that, but we wanted to consider it carefully. The most important part of it so far as this issue is concerned—that is, the issue of recommitment—is whether what we have come forward with is something which is so new as to require a debate beyond that which can be had at Report stage.
Remember in addition that there is the opportunity for debate at Report stage. The only problem with debate at Report stage is that, apart from the Minister, who may speak more than once by leave of the House, the procedure does not permit anyone else to speak more than once. Your Lordships may well consider whether that is the most desirable way, but that is another matter altogether. I myself would not be
106
unsympathetic to a view that maybe there ought to be, by leave of the House, permission for speaking more than once at Report stage, but that is not for me to say.
The fact is that there is the opportunity. There is no attempt here in any way to try to reduce the opportunities for debate. Here we are involved in a procedural matter. Certainly to my noble friend, upon whose help I rely so much in so many ways and on so many occasions, it is not lightly that we say that we are not in favour of what he is proposing today. Yet there are involved here certain precedents which could indeed be brought up, and I am sure will be brought up again often in the future if this Motion is to be passed. In all the circumstances I can only hope that your Lordships will agree that perhaps this is one of the occasions when we should not accept the proposition that my noble friend puts forward.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I add one point to support my noble friend? The Companion tells us that the machinery of re-commitment is to be used in only rare cases. It is clearly a matter of judgment when such action is to be justified, but I would think that there would need to be considerable substance in the matter to justify such a procedure. Clearly if there was not, then this procedure could be followed on any Bill when one could say that something new had come up to be looked at on Report stage which had not been looked at sufficiently on Committee. This would begin to make a nonsense of the procedure of this House.
It is a matter of judgment whether what my noble friend Lord Sandford has put so lucidly before us is a matter of substance. Those of us who are more or less familiar with the Bill can perhaps exercise an informed judgment. I dare say that to noble Lords who are not quite so intimately informed on this important Bill it may not be quite so clear. In my opinion, although consumer councils are of course important, the particular matter here is not of such gigantic substance that it is going to shake the world. I should have thought that my noble friend Lord Bellwin is right. We can deal with it perfectly adequately within the machinery of the Report stage debate, and we would not be justified in creating such a major precedent as to re-commit on something of this kind. I hope that the view of my noble friend Lord Bellwin will be accepted.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, may I offer one other comment on this? I do not know exactly whether it would be in any way conclusive. My noble friend has already referred to the fact that there was a draft of the guidelines circulated on, I think, 22nd November. This reply to a Question on 30th March is in fact pretty near a redraft of the same guidelines. It seems to me that this puts an entirely fresh complexion on the whole thing. I would also suggest, with great diffidence to your Lordships, that we would in this particular case have a very much tidier debate if Clause 7 were recommitted at this time.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, we have come to recognise that one of the characteristic features of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is his flexibility. This has been mentioned in this Chamber more than once. He

107
has been, as he rightly claimed, extremely flexible in the course of our consideration of this Bill. Many of us are grateful to him for the flexibility he has shown. But would it not be in keeping with this known character of his, his known form, as it were, if he were to show flexibility here once again?
So far as I could gather from his earlier comments, his only real objection to this course, apart from its unusualness—and I admit, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, it is unusual—seemed to be that a number of people would want to speak perhaps twice, and presumably that would take up a certain amount of the time of the House. He seemed to be saying that the debate might be more lengthy than we required.
I am not sure when the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, got up to speak, but it might have been round about three o'clock. Therefore, we have already spent 25 minutes on this procedural discussion which we could easily have spent on discussing the actual matter of Clause 7 had the Minister merely acceded right away. By attempting to save time, I think the Minister is really losing time. He is a flexible man, and we are often comforted in that thought. I think perhaps he should be flexible again this time.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Sandford decides how to dispose of this issue, I think we ought to exercise our judgment here as parliamentarians because a most important issue is involved. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale on the Committee stage on 8th March, at col. 202, referred to the fact that it was a very complicated issue and said, if I may quote his words:
"There are three different sets of guidelines attached to this Bill".
This is indeed correct. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale was perfectly correct in assuring the Committee of this particular matter, but if we are going to debate this subject in a manner which is both tidy and satisfactory—and I so agree with what has been said by earlier speakers—we should accede to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Sandford.
3.29 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I suggest a method whereby we could have the best of both worlds? The point made by my noble friend Lord Nugent is that if we adopt this procedure now we shall set a precedent. That is an extremely powerful argument. If noble Lords opposite were in Government and noble Lords on this side decided to do that, no Bill would get through this House because one could play monkeys with almost any Bill that came to your Lordships' House. This is a dangerous precedent.
It is just possible that new things are being produced by the written reply to my noble friend Lady Trumpington. Would it not be possible on this occasion to say that when we debate Clause 7 we delete the rule which says that a noble Lord may speak only once on each issue? Would it be possible to suspend that particular Standing Order for the sake of this clause, and so avoid its being re-committed, and then everybody has the best of all possible worlds? Being a peaceful man, that is what I always want.
Lord Denham: To reply to my noble friend on that point, my Lords, I am advised that it would not be possible to adopt the procedure he suggests, desirable though it may be, without notice.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps I may make a brief observation, with the leave to the House, in response to the noble Lord. Lord Howie, to whom I am grateful for what he said. I am well aware of the time it has taken to have this discussion, and my concern is very much that of my noble friend Lord Nugent. It would have been easy to have said: "Why not? There is no concern on the Government's part about the matter being debated". But there are factors here which are far more important than the issue of this one matter at this one time.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for giving this matter the amount of attention it has had. I think we need to stick strictly to the procedural issues, and not deal with the substance of the amendments. A number of references have been made to precedents. I do not agree that this would create a precedent. The Companion to the Standing Orders specifically prescribes for the possibility of recommitment—rare, maybe—and it is supremely a matter for the House to decide whether the circumstances which have arisen, and which I have outlined, correspond to the circumstances set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders It is not for me, for Ministers or for the Chief Whip to decide whether that is the case. It is a matter for your Lordships, and I must therefore leave it to the House to make a decision in the matter.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Amulree, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Balogh, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Banks, L.

Ezra, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Birk, B.

Gainford, L.

Bishopston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Blease, L.

Gallacher, L.

Blyton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Glanusk, L.

Brockway, L.

Gormley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Greenway, L.

Byers, L.

Grey, E.

Chitnis, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Collison, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hayter, L.

David, B.

Hemingford, L.

Davidson, V.

Heycock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

109

Hunt, L.

Pender, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Phillips, B.

Jeger, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Rochester, L.

Kagan, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Kearton, L.

Rugby, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

St. Davids, V.

Killearn, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandys, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Somers, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stamp, L.

Listowel, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Melchett, L.

Walston, L.

Milford, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Whaddon, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

White, B.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Peart, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ingrow, L.

Allerton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Bancroft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Berkeley, B.

Mansfield, E.

Bessborough, E.

Maybray-King, L.

Caccia, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigton, L.

Newall, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Onslow, E.

Daventry, V.

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dilhorne, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Selkirk, E.

Effingham, E.

Semphill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sherfield, L.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathspey, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Westbury, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Secondary Education in Scotland
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about Secondary Education in Scotland.
"One of my main concerns since coming into office has been to advance a development programme designed to introduce radical new arrangments for the curriculum and assessment of all 14-to-16-year olds at school in Scotland, building on the recommendations of the Munn and Dunning Reports published in 1977. I gave full details of our programme in response to my honourable friend the Member for Argyll on 31st March 1980.
"I am glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling efforts of all those who have taken on the burden of the development work since then and who have insured the success of the programme. The results of their work were fully reported in the consultative paper, The Munn and Dunning Reports: Framework for Decision, which I published in September last year. I received several hundred comments upon that paper and I am very grateful for the time and thought which was put into them. The respondents overwhelmingly supported the principle of the introduction of the arrangements proposed in the paper. I have considered their comments and I have decided to implement the new system along the following lines.
"I believe that the eight modes of study proposed by the Munn Committee provide a curriculum framework which all schools should adopt, taking account of the particular needs of each school and its pupils. Within this framework, all pupils should study English, Mathematics and Science, and there will be considerable scope for pupil choice of other subjects. I accept the Dunning Committee's proposal for one certificate for all pupils based on the three levels of syllabus of Foundation, General and Credit. Pupils will be assessed against performance standards related to the syllabuses they are studying. Practical skills will be assessed internally at all levels where appropriate and internal assessment will also be used for other aspects of the syllabus of the new Foundation level courses. In the light of further experience of the use of internal assessment for certificate purposes, I shall at a later date review the place of internal assessment in relation to all three syllabus levels. My aim in any such review will be to maintain, and, indeed, raise, standards at all levels.
"My consultative paper last autumn set out a 4-year implementation programme covering most of the subjects in the school curriculum. Several respondents commented that this was too slow. In view of this evident enthusiasm to proceed more quickly and in order to minimise the transitional period, I have therefore decided to implement the new system in three years rather than four. This will be done by bringing into the third year of the

111
programme all those subjects originally planned for the fourth. In addition to these changes, I have decided to introduce German at all three syllabus levels and to introduce Italian, Russian and Spanish at General and Credit levels in the third year.
"One important aspect of implementation is the resources available to support the programme. In the consultative paper, we stated that the implementation programme and other priority calls on staffing could be carried out with overall national staffing about 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. over the basic levels set out in what is familiarly known as the "Red Book". I remain of the view that staffing at about this level will be sufficient once the implementation programme has been completed. Nevertheless, I recognise that there will be an extra burden upon teachers during the transitional period, particularly now that we have speeded up the programme. I intend, therefore, to provide for staffing about 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. over "Red Book" levels, excluding the probationer allowance during the implementation period. I shall also be willing to consider applications by education authorities for reductions in the secondary school year for in-service training and syllabus development related to implementation. We will continue to support the programme through secondments of development officers, which have been very successful in previous work.
"The comments I received from bodies representing parents emphasised the need to ensure that parents fully understand and are fully consulted about the new arrangements. I appreciate the anxieties which parents will have, particularly if their children are in the third and fourth years of secondary education during the implementation period. The new arrangements will be widely publicised and explained to parents, children and employers.
"Details of our plans are set out in a circular which my department is sending to education authorities today, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I hope to make further announcements in the course of the summer.
"The Munn and Dunning Committees recommended major changes in secondary education. Our plans offer all pupils for the first time a common curriculum structure and courses suitable for all levels of ability leading to a single certificate for all. The implementation programme is a major undertaking and I do not underestimate the heavy burden of work still to be done, but I am confident from the comments I have received that all involved are anxious to set about the task and will ensure that it will succeed. Together with the programme recently announced in 16–18s in Scotland: An Action Plan, this reform will bring about major improvements in the education of all young people in Scotland."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place.
112
May I say that I, too, join with him in paying tribute to those who have borne the burden of preparing for this programme. I think it is a bit too early to talk about the success of this programme. There are many people who are very sceptical about this very important change in secondary education in Scotland. I am concerned because I have parental concerns with both reports, the Munn Report and the Dunning Report. The aim and concern was to get a much more relevant education in the 14-to-16-year group. There was concern—and I have always appreciated that there may have been concern by the party opposite when they raced into raising the school-leaving age when they had not adequately prepared for it.
The first thing I want to mention is that since 1977, when we got these reports, there has been a considerable change in respect of the outlook for young people in the wider world. One of the facts that we were worried about before 1977 was the relevance of the school curriculum and the educational system to the after-work scene. I wonder whether it is advisable to curtail the interim period and, it may be, do something that in retrospect might not be wise. The Minister refers to the three levels of syllabus; Foundation, General and Credit. Does he mean a single syllabus with three separate levels; or does he mean three separate syllabuses within the same subjects related to assessed levels? There are many people in Scotland concerned about a tripartite system of education and opposed to it. I think we want some guidance on that.
The Secretary of State has not made up his mind about everything yet. It is interesting that in 1980 the Secretary of State was complaining about the leisurely and hesitant approach of his predecessor. It has taken him three years to get to this point, and he is still hesitating about internal assessment. I do not blame him because it is a very complex business of changing from an accepted structure of secondary education and examination to yet another one. I must ask him this. In the Statement the Secretary of State says that several respondents commented that this was too slow—that is, the four-year introduction. Who were these "several respondents" to whom he listened? Was the Educational Institute of Scotland, the major professional organisation in Scotland, one of the respondents? I would be surprised if it were.
Also, in this foreshortened programme of implementation, will the noble Earl now outline exactly what the timetable is? According to my recollection, this is really the middle of summer in Scotland, because that is when the decision of the Secretary of State was to come—that is, summer 1983. Or are we seeing a clearing of the decks for some other important thing that may happen in the early summer? I could understand it if the Minister were to tell me that a circular is coming out and I shall see that. I think that to understand it all we would require to see that circular.
The consideration of these two reports and of the important implications for resources has always been overshadowed by the Government's overall policy of cuts in education. The Secretary of State said that in an earlier report; and now he tells us he is placing a heavier burden upon the administration, upon teachers and upon parents, too, in respect of this. He

113
says: "I am bending to the recognition of that, and I am going from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. and from 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. over the Red Book". Is he aware that the staffing of secondary schools at the present time is already 5·8 per cent? Therefore, in promising that he is going to do this extra, he is really promising nothing at all. Can he tell us in terms of money what it really means—or am I right in thinking that it has to be done on existing resources? If so, this is going to be a very insubstantial Statement indeed.
Lastly, it is said that arrangements will be widely publicised and explained to parents and children. It is going to be a very difficult period for children, and for the parents of those children concerned about their education, to have a shift in the middle of it, in the third and fourth year of secondary education. We take these matters seriously in Scotland. Who is going to be explaining to the parents? It is not enough just to put an advertisement in a local paper or for a headmaster to announce this at assembly. Is it to be done by the teachers? Is this another burden to be placed upon them? If so, it is going to be pretty unfair. Has this been discussed with COSLA or EIS, or with the teachers' organisations in Scotland?
The Minister says:
"I do not under-estimate the heavy burden of the work still to be done".
There is a tremendous amount of work to be done, and that is why I am concerned about the foreshortening of the period. We appreciate that most of the work was done by the Central Council for the Curriculum in Scotland, and at the time they were considering this they had a visit from Sir Derek Rayner. He invited them to reorganise and cut expenses, and the rest of it. I can appreciate the difficulties in respect of the burden of work. Is the Minister satisfied that all the work that could have been done has been done in coming to this decision? I, too, hope that it will work, because it is very important from the point of view of secondary education in Scotland.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, should like to welcome the repeating of the Statement by the noble Minister, and to welcome also the implementation of these reports. It is a fact that in Scotland we have perhaps relied too much on our ancient reputation in higher education, and perhaps we may have fallen behind a bit. Certainly it is absolutely scandalous to see the numbers of young people who leave school without any certificate whatever.
This new development is very welcome, and we hope and trust that the work will be done in the three years. But there are a number of things about which I should like to ask. First, in view of the excellent spread of subjects—German, Italian, Russian and Spanish at general and credit levels being introduced in the third year—is the noble Earl sure that this will be introduced into the smaller country schools as well as in those of the larger education authorities, where there are larger schools and perhaps they are able to staff them more easily? Will he be willing, if necessary, to extend the use of part-time teachers who can be of enormous value in this situation?
The thing that is really "bugging" me (if I may use the word) is the question of money, which was raised
114
by the noble Lord, Lord Ross. Have the authorities who have been consulted agreed that they can do it with 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. above the Red Book levels? Is he going to provide the money? And, as regards Strathclyde, which I understand are well behind Lothian in staffing and everything else, do they agree that it can be done in three years instead of four? These are very important questions, but the question of the cash being provided is the most important one because this immense widening of the curriculum cannot possibly be done with a cheeseparing programme. I should like the noble Earl's assurance that the authorities are satisfied that the money forthcoming from the Government will be sufficient. I hope that it works, but it will not work if the Government try to cheesepare.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their reaction to this Statement by my right honourable friend, and particularly, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, because of his immense professional expertise in this field before he took to politics. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. The first detailed question was about the three levels. As he will know, we are imposing a three-level system. That means there will be three separate syllabuses for each subject, and they will overlap. The reason for that is to enable movement between levels. I know that fears have been expressed that this system might lead to a form of divisiveness; but it has been designed to avoid that, because pupils will be able to transfer between levels as their performance merits. This means that in the case of one subject a pupil might well be at one level and in the case of another subject he or she might be at a quite different level. So I do not think that this will lead to divisiveness, as has been feared.
The second of the noble Lord's questions—and this was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—was about the speed of the programme. In fact, in the main, the respondents to my right honourable friend wanted a speed-up. There were a number of major bodies. But I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the EIS wanted a two-year programme. So that was their reaction at that time. The noble Lord also asked about the timetable. As was mentioned in the Statement, a copy of the circular will be placed in the Library. Perhaps I may just say this to the noble Lord. The first subjects start in 1984. The majority will be in by 1986.
Both noble Lords turned to staffing levels. As was said, a number of education authorities have been employing more teachers than the Government think they need. Our planned increase in provision during the implementation period will, I think, tend to narrow the gap. But those authorities which have been over-generous in their staffing levels can reduce them, and still will be able to implement the new arrangements. They will, in effect, have to deploy their staff more efficiently and eliminate small teaching groups and unnecessarily wide curriculum choice.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that this does not represent, as it were, something which should give rise to exceptional difficulty for rural schools. It is doing what many of these schools already do, but doing it better and in a way which will

115
be much more advantageous to the pupils involved. Of course, there will have to be consultation as between the parents of the children and the schools, but it will really be up to both the schools and the education authorities to present the picture, as it were, to parents in a way that they can appreciate and thereafter make their choices and decisions. My department will consult with the education authorities about it. I agree with noble Lords that it is something about which there will need to be quite a lot of co-operation.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can the Minister tell me who is doing the explaining? Also, will he further elucidate whether the syllabuses will be internal or external ones?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I tried to explain to the noble Lord that, so far as the explanations are concerned, there will be a circular from my department. Thereafter, it will be up to the schools, the teachers within them and the education authorities to make these explanations. Of course, the school teachers will have a key part to play in this matter, and it is partly for that reason that there may be facilities for the reduction of a school year in certain instances while these arrangements are being phased in.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister: since when have authorities or schools engaged more teachers than were necessary? Surely, this is a completely new concept, a new idea, as a result of this Government.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Baroness. There have for many years now been falling school rolls in Scotland, and the levels of teachers which are desirable in any particular instance must reflect the number of children in their area seeking education.
Baroness Stewart of Alvechurch: My Lords, in view of the fact that the last paper issued by the Department of Education cost £3·40, may I ask whether parents, pupils and teachers will be able to obtain reports from the department without having to pay for them?
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, this is a Scottish Office matter, but I will translate it, so to speak, into the Scottish dimension and write to the noble Baroness.

Citizens' Advice Bureaux: Funding
4.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement that is being made by my honourable friend in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the action I have taken on the grant-in-aid to the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I am glad to do this since we are discussing an organisation which fulfills an important national and local role, one which the
116
Government fully support. I feel I must make that absolutely clear. We have the fullest confidence in the CAB movement as a whole. It is a fine example of volunteers and professionals working together for the good of the community.
"Our support has been shown by the rapid increase in this Government's funding: in 1979–80, £1·85 million, in 1980–81, £4·02 million, £4·91 million in 1981–82, £5·75 million in 1982–83, and now £6·04 million in 1983–84. This money does not go directly to the local bureaux which receive some £10 million from local authorities; the Government grant goes to NACAB the central body and is used to finance a range of support services for all bureaux.
"But increases of this order can have disadvantages and I felt it proper to inquire if the money was being used effectively. I started looking at this in June last year. I may say one of the difficulties which they have freely admitted to me is that they have been without a permanent director from April 1982, to February 1983.
"That is one aspect that has concerned me. The other has been allegations of changing attitudes within some CABs and the taking up of campaigns which some people have seen as going outside the generally accepted scope of the service. For example, a local chairman resigned recently after 30 years in the service and of course I asked NACAB to look into this.
"I am glad to say that NACAB now have a permanent director and I welcome this. In my letter to the chairman on 21st March I said I was not sure whether the present level of grant was correct and that I intended to authorise a six-month grant, with a review thereafter. In this context, I said I would expect the association to tell me in good time before the middle of the year how it is dealing with the various matters I have raised with the association. To ensure that the money is being effectively used I have proposed, with the full support of the association itself, an early and independent review of its staffing and efficiency. They have also agreed to draft guidelines on the need for impartiality and avoiding activities which can be seen as politically motivated.
"My aim throughout, Mr. Speaker, has been to endorse and support the giving of accurate and impartial advice and information when it is needed and to ensure that the considerable sums of public money are put to the best use. These steps have absolutely nothing to do with the current CND campaign and were first mooted some months ago. I hope the House will accept that these steps are simply a prudent exercise of responsibility."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement that is being made by the Minister in another place. It is a strange way for the Government to say that they fully support the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I would remind the noble Lord who repeated the Statement that it is the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and not the Consumers' Advice Bureaux. If allegations are

117
made against an organisation, surely it is elementary for that organisation to know what are those allegations so that it can fully investigate them. I understand that about 30 allegations have been made to the Minister and that he has not divulged what these allegations are. Therefore the citizens' advice bureaux have been unable to investigate them.
However, the Minister quoted the case of a former chairman of a bureau in Greater London who has resigned. As a former chairman of the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux, I have taken the opportunity to look into the facts of the case quoted by the Minister. In a television programme the Minister named this chairman as the chairman of the Beddington and Wallington Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Apparently, this chairman wrote without consulting his committee to the present chairman of the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux and the Minister making, I am told, wild allegations about the work of the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux as a London organisation and about the staff of the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux. His allegations were investigated by the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and this particular chairman subsequently asked his local management committee for a vote of confidence in his action. This action of his did not get a vote of confidence, and as a consequence he resigned. The Minister referred to the fact that he was perturbed that this particular gentleman had resigned after 30 years' service. Those are the reasons how this came about.
I was glad to hear that the Minister has agreed to an early and independent review of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The high reputation of the CAB is not something to be treated lightly: it is important that it should be fully restored immediately. By taking the action which he has taken the Minister has served only to undermine confidence in the citizens' advice bureaux for no discernible reason. This is something which is to be regretted.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches may I, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating this very important and, to an extent, reassuring Statement. The noble Lord may care to note that we welcome the Statement in so far as it indicates continuing Government support for the CAB movement as a whole. However, we regret that the statement of an intention to authorise a six-month grant, with a review thereafter, cannot of itself end the uncertainty from which the CAB movement centrally has been suffering. Arising from that fact, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister three simple and general questions? First, do the Government accept that the need in our society for the services of the CAB has never been so great as it now is?
Secondly, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that a study, commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Security and carried out by the University of York, into the take-up level of certain benefits in different areas has shown a very close correlation between the take-up level of those benefits and the level of CAB activity within individual areas? Arising from that, if the Government are sincere in their avowed intention to do what they can to increase the take-up levels of certain benefits (I accept that the
118
Government are sincere in that intention) nothing could underline it more clearly than to take steps here and now to end the uncertainty from which the CAB movement is suffering centrally.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful for the comments and the interest which has been taken by the two noble Lords in the Statement made by my honourable friend in another place which I have repeated to your Lordships. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, thought that it was strange for the Government to give what he thought was somewhat qualified support to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I hope that I repeated this throughout my repetition of the Statement. If I made an error, I apologise to the noble Lord and to your Lordships. However, I reiterate once again that the Government strongly support the CAB movement. We believe that it is important in local communities and that it is a fine example of volunteers working with professionals. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said that my honourable friend had made wild allegations in a television programme.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I was referring to the wild allegations made by the chairman of the Beddington and Wallington Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think I took down fairly carefully what the noble Lord said.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord Lyell: We shall see in Hansard what was said. We need not over-discuss this, but I think I got it fairly accurately that the wild allegations the noble Lord was making were in relation to a television programme which I did not see and which I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, saw, since he said, "I am told". Those were Lord Ponsonby's words. Allegations have been made by the chairman, possibly by my honourable friend—although I would not accept that my honourable friend made wild allegations. Various leaders in today's newspapers have referred to allegations made by my honourable friend. I believe that the allegations in the media made against him are totally unjustified. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, pursued the affair of the chairman of one of the Greater London Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I would not want to comment further on that matter since the noble Lord seems to have the details and I would not wish to dispute them. There may be other details which we would regard as relevant, but I would not dispute the noble Lord's repetition of these facts. Once again, however, I reiterate the Government's full support of the CAB movement.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, the Government thank him for his reassurance, although he mentioned that it was faint thanks. We are, all the same, very grateful to him. Perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lord's three questions. First, he asked whether the Government agreed that the need is great. The answer to the noble Lord's question is, Yes. In reply to the noble Lord's second question, we are grateful to him and thank him for drawing the

119
Government's attention to this report. So far as the third question is concerned, I believe that this is not necessarily part of the role of the CAB. In her first interview, the new director of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux said:
"The main aim of the national association is to see that individuals do not suffer through ignorance of their rights".
That is a concept with which the Government fully agree.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both the Minister's Statement in another place and his own Statement today appear to a number of us to be almost incomprehensible? Is he aware, following the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that the noble Lord was simply referring to the position of the chairman of the Beddington CAB, which was itself part of the Minister's Statement in another place justifying the wholly mistaken decision which he has now taken? Is the noble Lord further aware that he owes to the House an explanation as to whether the facts stated by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, are correct or incorrect? If I may put a further point to the noble Lord, is he aware that the Minister's Statement, repeated here—vague allegations about changing attitudes within the CABs—will be seen by many to be a slur upon an wholly admirable organisation? Finally, is the noble Lord aware that a six-month grant is wholly unacceptable to a major organisation like the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, which requires sustained financial support if it is to do worthwhile work in the community?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I can do no better than to reiterate once again, in case the noble Lord did not hear and in case the House did not hear, the Government's full support for the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and for the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux in carrying out support functions and support roles for approximately 900 bureaux around the country. Certainly, any misgivings that may have been expressed in the media or elsewhere by my honourable friend can in no sense he taken as a slur on the Government's commitment to the success of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Nothing in the Statement and nothing said by my honourable friend can in any way be taken as a cut in the Government's financial support to the association.
The Statement stressed that approximately £10 million is raised by local authorities, which goes directly to the 900 bureaux. The £6·04 million that the Government have allocated for the current financial year will go as part of the support package to these bureaux and will also help the national association in their function. I reiterate once again that there is no question of cutting the Government's financial support to this admirable organisation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, aware of the serious uncertainty and unease which the words and action of the Minister in another place have created among those who carry on the work of the CAB throughout the country? To terminate—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
120
Greenwich, said—or to threaten to terminate, or to reduce financial support to a six-monthly basis, is wholly to undermine the confidence of those working in the organisation, a large number of whom are young people, although there are older people as well, giving their services freely. Is this not an extraordinary state of affairs, that instead of waiting for the outcome of an independent review, the threat of financial sanctions is made in advance of the outcome of that review? This is a sort of Alice in Wonderland situation—sentence first, trial afterwards. Is this not an intolerable situation; the situation in which the Minister and the Government have got themselves?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I would hope that we certainly have not got ourselves into an Alice in Wonderland situation or, as the noble and learned Lord said, into passing sentence first and holding a trial afterwards; I would dispute that suggestion very strongly. I stressed in the original Statement this Government's commitment to giving support to the national association, which has increased from £1·85 million in the financial year when we came into office to treble that, to £6·04 million, in the current financial year.
As I mentioned, if one has increases of this order there could be disadvantages. We felt it proper to inquire—no less and no more—into whether the money was being used effectively. I went on to repeat my honourable friend's Statement that one of the difficulties which the association have freely admitted to my honourable friend is that they were without a permanent director from April 1982 to February 1983. The noble and learned Lord and the House will be aware and will be happy that the association now has a new director. My honourable friend wishes to see how the land lies and what the national association see as being their functions. We are certainly seeing that the national association may continue with their present functions and present funding until September. That is in no way making a cut, and I trust that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, will accept that the suggestion of a cut is a misapprehension which I believe has been put about in the media. I would stress that point again to the noble and learned Lord and to all noble Lords.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, as a vice-chairman of the national association may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, whether he is aware that it has always been the determination of the association to ensure that their activities were entirely non-political? Therefore, they will welcome an opportunity to examine the evidence that the Minister has received. May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that to give the grant for a six-monthly period will make the planning of the service and the effective use of money almost impossible?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if I may take the second question first, the only thing that the national association need to do is to be in touch with my honourable friend. If the association wish to discuss this matter with him then I am sure he will be happy, when the time comes, to make suitable financial arrangements for the association's funding and planning. So far as his first question is concerned, I am afraid that I can do no

121
more than refer the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, to my honourable friend.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the supplementary questions which have been put to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, does he not agree that it is absolutely essential that the review referred to in his honourable friend's Statement should be both early and independent? Can he therefore tell the House when the review will be commenced? Is the noble Lord in a position to tell the House who will be conducting this review, who will be the independent person, and when the review is likely to be made public?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for asking this particular question because it is an important point and one that I have not stressed sufficiently. I can confirm to your Lordships that this review will be undertaken either by management consultants or by our own staff inspection service; that is, by my honourable friend's department. My honourable friend will of course be consulting the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux on this point before making a final decision. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has raised the important point that this investigation should be completed quickly and thoroughly. We are very confident that it will be of real value to the entire service, but we must take "quickly" and "thoroughly" into consideration too. We must always remember the proverb, more haste less speed—although I cannot put it into Welsh as the noble Lord could do so well.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I apologise for getting up again, but will he take it from me that many noble Lords from all sides of the House would not regard a review conducted by people who are within his honourable friend's own department as being an independent review?
Lord Lyell: I will stress again, my Lords, that my honourable friend will be consulting the national association before taking a final decision on who should conduct the review, on how the review should be conducted, and on the points it should cover.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford that the question of the evidence on which his honourable friend the Minister had based his remarks was simply something that had to be referred to the Minister. Can the noble Lord say why that is the case? Has he seen the evidence, or not? If not, why not? If he has seen it, why not tell the House what it is?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the remarks to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is referring, or what evidence would be needed to back them up. I am afraid that I am certainly still in the dark, probably as much as my honourable friend.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, is it not true that officials from the Department of Trade attend every meeting of the executive committee of the
122
National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux and that they have never at any time raised any point with regard to the finances of the organisation?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not aware that officials from the department attended; clearly the noble Lord has given me valuable instruction and I am very grateful for it. We are not questioning the finances of the organisation—nobody is doing that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, will be reassured on that point.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, if the finances of the association are not being questioned, why is the grant being held to a period of six months?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the entire role of the organisation will be discussed with the new director. I stressed that in the original Statement and I stress it now once again.

Water Bill
4.29 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before we receive the Report, I wonder whether the Government can give any indication of future business in view of the vote taken on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, earlier?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am sure that the business management of the House, in the conduct of which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is such a distinguished member, will decide that before very long, and that a statement will be made.
I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to: Report received.
Clause 1 [Constitution and procedure of water authorities]:
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("of whom not fewer than two and not more than four shall be appointed from among persons duly elected as members of local authorities (as defined in section 38 of the principal Act) within the water authority's area and nominated by those local authorities.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I will try not to go over the ground that was so adequately covered at Committee stage, but I think it is important that one should remind noble Lords of the thoughts behind the reframing of the amendment. I must say that on this side of the House we are sorry and very disappointed that the Minister was not able to find it possible to take any action, or even to suggest the mechanics that would be desirable, to make possible what we wanted to achieve. I would say at the beginning that my noble friend Lady Nicol, who very ably moved this amendment at Committee stage, unfortunately cannot be with us this afternoon because she was taken ill last evening and is confined to bed in a hotel. For that reason I feel that I should remind the House of the points she drew to the attention of the Committee.
We had assurances from the Minister in this House, and assurances were also given in the other place, that there would be between two and four members of local authorities appointed to the regional water authorities. In the other place on 16th November 1982 the Minister said:
"It is proposed that there should be executive members on the executive authority and that it should include local authority members." [Col. 152.]
So already in the other place it was decided that there would be a number of local authority members on the water authorities. Then we come to 7th February in this House. When the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was introducing the Second Reading, he said:
"we propose that county and district councils will have the opportunity to nominate people for at least two appointments to the new boards." [Col. 993.]
That is what we are asking for in the amendment: the opportunity to nominate not fewer than two and not more than four. So all we are doing in this amendment is writing into the Bill what has already been agreed at ministerial level.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when he spoke at Second Reading, said that he was sympathetic to our point of view, but he went on to the problems and difficulties. Nevertheless, he did say on 24th February:
"However, we have made it clear—I gladly repeat—that county and district councils will be invited to nominate people for some of the appointments. I say it again—of between two and four members of each authority depending on the size. I reiterate that pledge gladly." [Col. 864.]
All we are asking is that the pledge should be reiterated and written into the Bill. If one gives a pledge at the Dispatch Box I should have thought that some consideration had been given to it before a commitment of that description was given. It is no good saying desirable things and not writing them into the Bill, because to say that something will be the intention of the Government means nothing at all. We have had that so many times in this House. I think Lord Simon said at one stage that it was important that you write down what you intend, that you write it in simple terms so that it is interpreted in the way that you wish it to be acted upon, and that you cannot, when looking at Acts of Parliament, interpret the spirit of what was behind the intention of a Government. While the Government have said what they mean to be the spirit behind it and have made comments from the Dispatch Box, we say that that pledge that was given to us should be written into the Bill.
I am not going to keep the House long, because we had a long debate on this subject on the previous occasion. I would remind noble Lords that on this side of the House we were prepared at Committee stage to divide on this issue, and if we had divided we would have had great support from all sides of the Committee. As your Lordships will see, the amendment is in my name as a Vice-President of the AMA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, President of the Association of District Councils, in the name of Lord Evans of Claughton, of the Liberal Party, and in the name of Viscount Ridley, President of the ACC. So it has all-party support and the support of all the local authorities. It is important to remind your Lordships that we did intend to divide on this issue. We are most
124
disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to honour the pledges given to us at Second Reading. Therefore, in moving the amendment I must say that unless we get a very satisfactory answer from the Minister, it is our intention to divide on this issue.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness. I agree with her that it is not necessary to say a great deal more because this is the same amendment that was debated very thoroughly at Committee stage. It is a matter of considerable concern to the local authority associations. My noble friend Lord Ridley, whose name is on the amendment, asked me to apologise to the House for not being here to join in the debate.
The fact of the matter is that almost all the services with which we are now concerned—water supply, sewerage, building of sewage plants, building of reservoirs—originated in local government. At the moment the regional water authorities are operating, and they are accountable to the public and to their consumers via a majority of local authority representatives on each of the regional water authorities. The Government do have a case, and they have deployed it well, for saying that that system of accountability and majority government, relying in each water authority on a majority of elected authority members, has not worked as well as was intended.
But we cannot go from that situation to the situation that we are in now, where there is nothing whatever in the Bill to secure the presence on any board of any of the regional water authorities of any elected member of any local authority at all. This is an absurd situation to be in in respect of the drafting of the Bill, when Ministers have over and over again given us their assurances that there will be between two and four members of elected authorities and that the authorities will be able to nominate people from which the Secretary of State may make his selection. The amendment incorporates and encapsulates nothing but assurances that have already been given to both Houses of Parliament by Ministers. But I submit to the House that Parliament cannot in an important matter like this rest solely on the assurance of Ministers. We are here to legislate and we must get the essential features of the legislation into the Bill.
If I may say so in defence of my noble friend, the assurances that he gave us were assurances that he would reconsider the whole matter and use his utmost endeavours to reflect the wishes of the House to his colleagues. I personally am satisfied that he will by now have done that. But the fact of the matter is that he has not persuaded the collective Government to change their mind. Therefore, I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that it seems likely that we shall be left with no option but to press the amendment to a Division.
4.41 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. It was not only what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said in Committee but the tone in which he said it. I am absolutely certain, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, that he represented the views of the House as strongly as he possibly could to his ministerial colleagues. But because of his tone and

125
because of what he said, I was one of those who was, I think, instrumental in helping to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and her colleagues not to press the matter the last time in Committee to a Division. I did that because I genuinely felt that we were getting a long way with what my noble friend Lord Bellwin had said, and above all, from the tone—the total and complete sincerity—in which he said it. He is a sincere man, so there is no question of criticism on that.
However, it is most unfortunate that there seems to be nothing forthcoming from Her Majesty's present advisers. In those circumstances, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, were prepared to withdraw her amendment, I should personally like to press it. I think that local authority representation on water boards is very important indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Ridley have my fullest support.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I very briefly apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton on this occasion. He hoped to be here. He is chairing an important meeting, I believe somewhere in the Palace, and is unable to be here. I merely want to say that, having heard the mover of the Motion and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I entirely agree on behalf of members of the Liberal Party with what has been said.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, just before my noble friend speaks, I should like to say one word in support of what he said at Committee. He said:
"It is our intention that there will be a local government representation … of between two and four members … depending on the size. I reiterate that pledge gladly".
That is where everybody seems to have stopped, but he went on to say:
"it would be wrong to tie the Secretary of State's hands … All the appointments are made by the Secretary of State and he cannot yield up his right to appoint, either to local authorities or to other bodies".—[Official Report, 24/2/83; col. 864.].
The amendment is exactly the same as it was at Committee and it has exactly the same flaw within it.
I should have thought that you really have to size this up as to whether it is right that, if you are agreeing that the Secretary of State makes appointments, you then in legislation undermine that by giving authority to other people to make some of the appointments for him. I should have thought that what my noble friend said last time was perfectly straightforward. I would expect that what he may well say now would be something very similar. I think that it would be wrong to take this matter to a Division. I think that the amendment itself is defective for the purpose which it seeks to achieve.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I say first of all that I am sorry to hear that the noble baroness, Lady Nicol, is ill. I hope that she is not very ill and will soon be back.
I think that I ought to take up the comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made when she said that the Government have not honoured pledges given in Committee. She must not say that I gave pledges at
126
Committee as to what I would be bringing forward at this Report stage. I want to repeat what I said. The Government have made a repeated commitment—there is no going back one inch on that at all—that between two and four members of the reconstituted water authorites should be people from local government and that the local authorities in the area should have the opportunity to make nominations for these places. I said that then and I say it again. There is no going back on that. But what I did not do is give a pledge at the time as to precisely what the Government would do about the Bill.
I think that one has to be very careful about this aspect. One is often asked to consider matters. When I say that I will consider them, I do not say it lightly. I would rather not say it at all; but if I say that I will consider a matter, it means that I will take it away and discuss it with colleagues. I mean to do that, and that is exactly what I do. I am sure that the noble Baroness will concede that to me, as I hope will other noble Lords. What I cannot promise always is what I can come forward with, or that we shall always believe it right to change a line that we are taking.
I am advised that the House is to be divided, but even so I think it proper that I should say again what the position is so that there should be no doubts so far as the record is concerned. I think that we must keep in our minds the underlying intention of Clause 1. The purpose of the clause, as we are all by now well aware, is to transform the membership of the water authorities from a system in which at the present time most members are appointed by local authorities to a system in which all are appointed by Ministers; from a system which is not efficient to one which improves decision-making and clarifies the accountability of the authorities to Ministers and to Parliament on the one hand and, through the new consumer arrangements we are introducing, to the public on the other.
We have accepted the point of the two to four members in recognition of the historical and functional links existing between the water industry and local government, but we have not made any comparable pledges to any other interested parties in respect of any of the other places on the new boards. This is a key point which I must emphasise. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and others who have spoken, will know the great pressure under which we have come, and will doubtless come yet again before this day is out, to do just that. But the fact is that we have not made such pledges. I think that there is every significance in that.
Under present arrangements, as I have said, efforts have been made to secure representation from the CBI, the trade unions, the commercial sector, recreationalists, conservationists, and so on. There have been amendments in the course of this Bill which would have forced us to continue to make appointments from those areas. We have resisted them, not because we think that those interests are less relevant than hitherto—not at all—but because in our view the primary qualification for membership of a water authority must be the effective contribution which can be made to the management of a large undertaking—I shall return to this in a moment—and for two other main reasons.

127
The first is that the number of members, reduced as it is to between nine and 15, simply precludes allocating places to particular interest groups, even if that were desirable; and, secondly, because in our view the input which the various interests I have listed can make should come through the new consumer arrangements which we are establishing under Clause 7. So, for example, we have not said that there should be a place on the board for an industrialist, or a recreationist, or any of the others whom I have mentioned. Yet we have agreed that there should be between two and four local authority members, and thus we are singling out local authorities in a very special way.
I shall not go into greater detail on some of the matters, but I think that I should touch on the point that what we say is the intention should be written on the face of the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, we attach high importance to the appointment of executive members to the water authorities. In our view those who are responsible for key policy areas in the water authorities—for instance, the chief executive and the director of finance—must in future be members of the authority, and thus accept full collective responsibility for their actions. That has been stated frequently, and I gladly repeat it today because I think that it is important. But I would point out that we have not thought it necessary to legislate on this matter. There is no requirement written in the Bill that we should make these appointments. What the Bill states—and this applies to all the members—is that they must comply with the overall requirement of skill and experience, and, important though they may be, other matters are secondary to that requirement.
There are other serious problems about the present amendment. So far as we can ascertain, what it proposes has not been precedented in any of the nationalised industries with which water authorities might be compared. It has not been precedented in area electricity boards, or the Gas Corporation, even though both of those industries have historical links with local government in many ways comparable with those of the water industry. By making the commitment that we have made we are going beyond the arrangements in the gas and the electricity industries—indeed, a good deal beyond them—but we can see no reason for going yet further and introducing unprecedented provisions into legislation such as this.
In addition, as your Lordships know, it is our intention to appoint people for fixed terms. The amendment would require us to write in the two to four local government appointees, and it specifies that those appointed should be elected members of local authorities. We do not think that we should tie the local authorities' hands in this way. They may have in mind very competent people who are no longer members of local authorities but whom they would wish to suggest to us for appointment; and indeed already we have had from a local authority one nomination of someone who in May will be standing down from membership of his council. Moreover the fixed term is an important element. Members must know that they have a reasonable period to serve, during which they can carry out the tasks that they may set for themselves without the vagaries of losing
128
their places if they lose their seats on the local authority.
There are other awkwardnesses, some of which I touched on at Committee stage. To construct an amendment which would meet your Lordships' wishes that we write something into the Bill, and which would nevertheless meet the Secretary of State's requirement that he should appoint the members and should have a right to reject any of those who might be suggested, would be a cumbersome business. We should need to define in close terms those who were to make the nominations, and how many they should nominate so as to give the Secretary of State a choice. That would not necessarily be straightforward. In addition, we should have to define some process for rejecting all the nominations, or asking for more if the Secretary of State was not satisfied that those suggested would meet his overall requirements for the authority. Your Lordships might say that it could be left to the Secretary of State as to whether or not he appoints any of the nominees, but, with respect, I must say that that would not appear to meet what your Lordships have been pressing for in earlier debates.
Those and other technical difficulties I mention merely to indicate that drafting an amendment is not a simple matter. However, for the reasons that I have indicated, we do not think it appropriate to legislate on this question. The local authorities should recognise that they are being placed in a privileged position compared with all the other interested parties. Not only will they have the exclusive right to nominate a member for the consumer consultative committees, but they alone will have the right to make nominations to membership of the water authorities themselves, with a clear undertaking—I state yet again—that between two and four local government members will be appointed.
I am sorry that I cannot go farther than that. However, I hope that I shall be allowed to take up a point that I made when we were discussing the matter raised earlier by my noble friend Lord Sandford; namely, the extent to which the Government have been flexible in regard to the Bill. We really have tried to give proper consideration to what has been put forward from the Opposition and from my own noble friends, and we have been willing to be flexible. However, on this matter we feel that there are the difficulties that I have mentioned, though it seems that your Lordships feel that there must be a Division. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Onslow felt that not only what I said on the previous occasion but the tone in which I said it, persuaded him in regard to a Division. I suppose that that underlines one of the reasons why I come here and speak for the Government on these matters. As he said, I always speak sincerely, and he knows that I shall never speak in any other way. However, your Lordships yourselves must reach a conclusion.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the House divides, I should like to refer to what the Minister has said; and I have read what he said in Committee. Unfortunately I was not present on the first day of the Committee stage. I am bothered and bewildered, but certainly not bewitched. The Minister makes it quite clear that county and district councils will be invited to

129
nominate people for some of the appointments. He has again repeated that there is no question but that there will be local government members on the bodies, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, he went on to say that he believed that it would be wrong to tie the Secretary of State's hands by legislation in the way that the amendment proposes.
However, the fact remains that despite what the Minister said previously, as well as today, on the face of the Bill there is no reference whatsoever to any local government members being members of the water authorities; there is no such reference at all. We all know that once a Bill has been passed and it becomes a statute, reference to Hansard is not allowed to the courts. What is stated in Hansard may be of interest, but it has no validity at all if set against what is in fact in the Bill. It seems to me that the matter is quite simple and that there should not be any great difficulty in the Government's coming forward with an amendment which would cover the points that have been made by the Minister, which would give the Secretary of State a free hand, and which would enable the local authorities to nominate people. A great many nominations might be sent in, and so it would not be a question of choosing one person from a small pool. This kind of thing happens in relation to so many bodies, and it could be written into the Bill that it would be left to the Secretary of State.
We do not know how long a particular Secretary of State will remain in office. We do not know when there is to be a change of Government. We are left with a Bill which contains no reference at all to local authority members. I, too, speak as a vice-president of the AMA, and all of us concerned with local government feel that it cannot be beyond the wit of either the Minister or the department to devise a bridging amendment which would cover his objections as well as the points which my colleagues and I regard as essential.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has perhaps not been able to convince his colleagues. He pointed out that it is very difficult to write into the Bill actual numbers in relation to people appointed, but I would point out that the next but one amendment that we are to discuss refers quite clearly to "at least two members" whom the Secretary of State will want to appoint because they have experience of land drainage or fisheries. No doubt people who have experience of land drainage or fisheries are important people. They are not people I would normally bump into, though no doubt they are very important people; but I would not say that they are any more important than local authority representatives, who have been democratically elected.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he was not going to write the point into the Bill, and I should like to remind him of what he said at the Committee stage. It had to do with the MAFF. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said:
"We have already gone as far as we think is right on that point. As I say, there will be two people for MAFF, two for local government and there will, of course, have to be a chairman". [Official Report, 24/2/83; col. 861.].
130
I do not know whether, in the case of the Welsh water authority, at least two members to be written into the Bill are MAFF people or not. As a city person, I am perhaps not so well aware of the position. However, if it is possible to write in two members for one group of people, I do not see what argument the Minister can deploy for saying that two people representing another group of people cannot be written in, especially when the two, or the four, local government representatives will be representatives of the total population of the country. They are not people in land drainage and fisheries, who will be representing a very small percentage of the population.
When the Minister talks about the privileged position of local authority representatives in sitting on consumer consultative committees, one has the impression that it is a privilege to serve on the water authority. These are positions that have been held since re-organisation. I do not believe there has been any real criticism that local authority representatives have made the water authorities less efficient. I know that the Minister has to give a reply of some description, but it is hardly convincing when in the next amendment he proposes to do exactly the same as we ask in this amendment; that is, to define numbers in the Bill. We intend to divide on this issue.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 101.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gregson, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Balogh, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Banks, L.

Hemingford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Beswick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hunt, L.

Bishopston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blease, L.

Ilchester, E.

Blyton, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boothby, L.

Jacques, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jeger, B.

Briginshaw, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Brockway, L.

Kagan, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Chitnis, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Listowel, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Melchett, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Minto, E.

Ewart-Biggs, L.

Mishcon, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Molloy, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Northfield, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenamara, L.

Oram, L.

Gormley, L.

Peart, L.

131

Phillips, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Vickers, L.

Rochester, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Walston, L.

Rugby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sandford, L.

White, B.

Serota, B.

Wigoder, L.

Shackleton, L.

Winstanley, L.

Stamp, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

McFadzean, L.

Allerton, L.

Malmesbury, L.

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mansfield, E.

Bellwin, L.

Mar, C.

Beloff, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cairns, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Daventry, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Rochdale, V.

Denham, L.

Romney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ebbisham, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Salisbury, M.

Elton, L.

Sandys, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Somers, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glenkinglas, L,

Strathspey, L.

Gridley, L.

Swansea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Terrington, L.

Hives, L.

Teynham, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ingrow, L

Thorneycroft, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lane-Fox, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Lawrence, L.

Westbury, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Loudoun, C.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Business Statement
5.11 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, with the leave of the House, I were to make a Business statement. It may be helpful for your Lordships to know that it is now
132
proposed that the Committee stage on re-commitment of Clause 7 of the Water Bill should be taken tomorrow before the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. That should mean that the Committee stage that results from the re-commitment of Clause 7 should come on at about 6 p.m., or perhaps a little earlier if the short debate on the nationalised industries does not take its full two and a half hours.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for so promptly making that statement.

Water Bill
Consideration on Report continued.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
("(5) In the case of the regional water authorities, the members appointed by the Secretary of State shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I would like also to deal with Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is to provide that the Secretary of State will appoint at least two land drainage and fishery members to the Welsh authority.
These amendments follow from the commitment I gave in Committee on 24th February to examine again the wording of new Section 3(5)(b) which specifies the criteria for appointments by the Secretary of State of members of the Welsh Water Authority. In the debate on that occasion my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley put it to us that as the clause stands, because of the use of the word "or" at page 2, line 21, there would be no requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint any member with experience in land drainage or fisheries to the Welsh Authority; in my noble friend's view, he could, if he chose, appoint a board consisting entirely of cockleshell collectors if indeed we felt that cockleshell collecting was:
"some other matter relevant to the functions of water authorities".
Of course, there is no danger of that, and no danger that land drainage and fisheries will not be represented. However, having considered the point, we believe that it would be helpful to make it quite clear that there is an obligation in respect of land drainage and fisheries, and that is the purpose of the amendments.
I now turn to Amendment No. 4. In the debate on 24th February my noble friend also raised the question of the omission of the word "agriculture" from the criteria for appointments in Wales. As he pointed out, the term "agriculture" does appear in new Section 3(4) which relates to appointments by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the English authorities. On the face of it this perhaps appears inconsistent. However, having looked again at the matter very carefully, we do not believe it to be so and do not consider that it would be appropriate to refer to agriculture at this point in the Bill.
In the case of the English water authorities there is necessarily a restriction on flexibility because of the specific statutory responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture,

133
Fisheries and Food. Without a reference to "agriculture" in new Section 3(3) the Minister would be unable to appoint a member from people experienced in agriculture unless they also had experience in land drainage or fisheries. Even so, within these limitations the Bill aims at the maximum flexibility by the use of the word "or" at page 2, line 10, and by the general form of words at page 2 lines 14–17.
New Section 3(5A) as amended similarly aims at achieving flexibility for the Welsh Water Authority. However, in this case since only one Minister is making the appointments, the separation of agriculture, land drainage and fisheries on the one hand, and other matters relevant to the functions of water authorities on the other hand, is not necessary. The Secretary of State for Wales is the Minister of Agriculture in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales will be free to appoint any number of people with different relevant backgrounds, including of course agriculture, within the limits of 9 to 15. Indeed, three of the current members of the Welsh Water Authority are farmers. Therefore, so far as the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are concerned, there is no need to specify any activities separately. This is why it would be superfluous to specify "agriculture" or indeed experience relevant to any other group of consumers.
However, the Bill makes provision for the fact that, in common with the English water authorities, the Welsh Water Authority has specific statutory responsibilities for land drainage and fisheries in addition to what are commonly called their "DOE" functions. I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and I hope that my noble friend will withdraw Amendment No. 4 at the appropriate time.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17 leave out from ("authorities") to ("some") in line 21 and insert—
("(5A) In the case of the Welsh authority—

(a) at least two members shall be persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have had experience of, and shown capacity in, land drainage or fisheries; and

(b) the remaining members shall be persons who appear to him to have had experience of, and shown capacity in,").

Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
Paragraph (a), line 3, after ("in") insert ("agriculture,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend has said and I therefore shall not press this particular amendment. However, I have to tell him that he has not really convinced me that the omission of the word "agriculture" makes sense. Although I suspect that your Lordships will not believe me, the word "agriculture" in this instance has nothing to do with pressing the farmers' case; it is, in my opinion, only trying to put the matter in line with the English boards.
I would say at this stage that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, when speaking or trespassing on this amendment and the last one, got the wrong end of the stick. We are not promoting individual cases here. It is a job that has to be done as my noble friend on the Front Bench just mentioned. We have to have
134
someone in charge of the land drainage committees and, indeed, the fisheries committees, and it only seems sensible to have someone who knows something about it.
The argument that the Secretary of State for Wales is the Minister of Agriculture in Wales and therefore he does not need the word "agriculture" is one that I cannot follow. Even the Minister of Agriculture in England has the word "agriculture" in his title and I should have thought that it was just as important for the Secretary of State for Wales to have a similar reminder. However, as I said, I shall not press the matter. I do not think that it would make much difference, anyhow. I am sorry that my noble friend cannot accept what a weak case he has here and what a strong case I have as far as logic is concerned. But although I shall in future no doubt disagree with him—as I have on occasions previously—I would like to thank him very sincerely for listening to my argument in Committee, which he always does, and for having taken the matter away, discussing it with his colleagues and coming back and tabling this amendment. Therefore, I do not propose to move this amendment and I thank him for tabling his two amendments.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert ("and regard shall be had to the desirability of one or more of the persons having knowledge or experience of wildlife and landscape conservation, or recreation.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we went through this matter in very considerable detail at Committee stage. I should not like to detain your Lordships more than I think is absolutely necessary. The whole issue of water conservation in its broadest sense and the conservation of wildlife habitats along the edges of rivers and on estuarial plains is now a matter of which we are becoming even more aware than we were five years ago. It is of very great importance indeed. I concede that the water authorities are more sensitive to this than they were five years ago. There is also the enormous and growing need for recreation—be it sailing or fishing—which has to be tied into general water space use or water use, call it what you will.
There is a precedent for the wording of this particular amendment in the National Heritage Bill. However, I at least will be happier if I can receive an undertaking from my noble friend that when it comes to appointing members of the new boards, they will use their best endeavours to get people on the boards who have knowledge of this sort as well as having people who have important knowledge of other matters. The phrase "best endeavours" is quite a good one to use; after all, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, argued about "best endeavours" throughout the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 1976. I do not think that I need detain your Lordships any longer. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Earl has watered down his amendment. I believe that the amendment is an essential one, and that it is essential that in the Bill,

135
when it becomes an Act, there should be some specific mention of the kind that this amendment provides. There has been constant bickering and trouble over all the waterways of this country—whether rivers or canals—on exactly this type of point, and I believe that it is extremely important that this should be in the Bill in some form or other.
I also think that to tell a Minister to use his "best endeavours" is a meaningless phrase. What else will he use—his "worst" or his "moderate" endeavours? It is not the kind of wording that could possibly go into an Act. Therefore, I support the amendment and very much hope that the noble Earl will recede from receding on it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe this amendment to be divisive. To me it once again draws attention, I believe destructively, to the divisions that sadly exist in the countryside. In this case the division is not between farmer and conservationist, but between recreationist, and wildlife and conservationist. As the amendment is written, your Lordships will appreciate the relevance of the word "or", which in practice will mean that the recreationist—and by that I mean the sailor or the fisherman—could never get a place on the authority.
As I see it, the only merit of this amendment is to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that many interests are asking for attention to be paid to their needs in the countryside, and not just the conservationist and the farmer. We have certainly not resolved this problem of trying to satisfy all these different interests, and it will not be easy to do so. But certainly this amendment will only aggravate the problem. The sooner we, like the extremists and the aggravations that exist in the countryside, fall quiet and listen quietly, perhaps the sooner we shall resolve our differences.
Baroness White: My Lords, in general terms I would wish to support this amendment. I very much appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley; he is making a perfectly fair comment. The boards which are now to run the water authorities are very much smaller in number than they were previously. That is something which I, personally, support; I believe we need a managerial board. However, when one limits the numbers in the way in which they have been limited, and when one takes account of the need to have, for example, local authority representation in one form or another and managerial representation, which is one of the reasons why the form of administration is being changed, it is very easy to overlook the other interests.
What I think is being emphasised in this amendment is that there are other very significant interests in this whole field of water management, and that someone who has managerial experience in the narrower sense may or may not be knowledgeable in such areas. Many of us are apprehensive that, unless there is at least one person on the actual board who has some real understanding of these problems, they will not receive the kind of attention which is due to them. The fact that there may be subsidiary advisory committees, which were discussed during the
136
Committee stage of this Bill, is not significant in itself unless one has a voice in the higher echelons of management.
Therefore, I think that it is perfectly proper to table an amendment of this kind, otherwise such considerations are apt to be overlooked, particularly if it is considered that one could have a board—nine is the minimum, is it not?—of only nine. A small authority might have only nine, but the conservation and landscape considerations can be just as acute, even if not as numerous, in a small water authority as in a large one. The size of the authority is no necessary concomitant of the acuteness of such problems, and it seems to me that in some instances nine is too small a number to comprehend the interests which I think should properly be represented on a water authority.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I believe that this is a very desirable amendment and I hope that the noble Earl will not withdraw it. Although the present situation may be quite favourable towards wildlife and conservation, this Bill is to apply to many further generations, or at least we hope so, and they may not be so favourably disposed towards it. Therefore, it is important that this provision should be written into the Bill.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to stress the point of view, which I think is becoming increasingly prevalent—and I undoubtedly hope that the success of the United Kingdom's contribution to the world conservation strategy, in any measurable form, will be stressed—that conservation is not one sectoral issue to be considered. To that extent, this amendment is not—and I say this with respect to my noble friend Lord Stanley—a divisive issue. It is very important indeed, considering the statutory obligations that by successive legislation, including recent legislation, have been laid upon the water authorities, that there should be a total perspective of conservation on the authorities. It is only if there is awareness of conservation issues at the highest policy-making level that the water boards will be able to exercise their statutory obligations. Unless there is this awareness, when critical issues arise it is only too likely that the conservation viewpoint will be neglected.
To that extent I think that the amendment, which seems to propose conservation as an alternative to recreation, is deficient. I should very much like to see my noble friend the Minister give a firm assurance that conservation in this sense will be seen, and will be considered, as a paramount issue by the Secretary of State when he makes his appointments.
I should like to ask my noble friend, if it is appropriate to do so, to confirm that in fact in the past some appointments which have been made by the Secretary of State to existing boards, including some of the larger boards, such as Thames Water, have been made by persons with experience in conservation, including persons who are members of the Nature Conservancy Council. Is it not in fact the case that the number of appointees by the Secretary of State under the proposed system in this Bill will, in fact, be greater than the number which he has had the opportunity to appoint in the past? We are not talking about numbers of persons any longer, nor, I hope, about precise

137
nominations, but talking about the means to instil into all the activities of the water authorities a perspective which respects conservation issues as an all-encompassing approach and not as a separate sector or item that has to be added up among other considerations.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment because, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, we had a debate and indeed a Division on a much more precise and stronger amendment at Committee stage. There seemed to be considerable support, both in your Lordships' Committee then and more generally, for the view that when appointments are made to new water authorities there should be at least some consideration by Ministers of the importance of conservation of both wildlife and landscape, and of recreation interests, when those appointments were made. That is what this amendment would do.
May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, when they direct our attention to the word "or" between "wildlife and landscape conservation" and "recreation"? The word "or" is there simply to ensure that Ministers retain maximum flexibility. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, the wording follows that used in the National Heritage Bill. The intention is that when Ministers are making appointments they are not constrained to appoint one person, or two, or any other number; nor to have to include somebody with wildlife or landscape conservation interests; nor, on the other hand, to have to appoint somebody with recreation interests. I assume that parliamentary draftsmen got it right in the National Heritage Bill, and the wording is in that form so that it is completely open and Ministers simply take these factors into account. They are not bound by any of the words in the amendment. It is the desirability of it to which they give consideration.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that his enthusiasm and determination to make sure that there are land drainage and fisheries experts on every water authority, including those in Wales, seem to be matched almost exactly by his determination to ensure that there is no mention in the Bill of consideration of recreation or conservation interests by Ministers when they come to make appointments.
Now as to the words in the amendment, and the justification for something being in the Bill at all. Agriculture is the only other interest—and I am using that to include land drainage and fisheries, which is explicitly mentioned—and the Government have made a great deal of this. A great deal of the justification is that water authorities have a statutory remit to appoint land drainage and fisheries committees. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said a few minutes ago, it makes good sense that there should be somebody with that expertise on the water authority. As I understand it, that is the reason why the Government have included those two people in the provision in the statute and why they are fiercely resisting any attempt to have anybody else specified on the face of the Bill.
138
The answer to that is to look at what other committees, at a regional level, the water authority is going to be obliged to set up. There is nothing in the Bill about this, but we know that when we come to debate Clause 7 tomorrow there will be a long discussion about, among other things, the regional committee, or committees, which the guidelines will say that all water authorities have to set up. So that that is going to be just as much a fact of life as the land drainage or fisheries committee, although, I acknowledge, not a statutory fact of life. That committee will be set up to cover recreation, wildlife and landscape conservation under the guidelines.
That also makes a particular point of those interests at regional level. It would, therefore, not be asking too much for Ministers, when making appointments to regional water authorities, to consider the desirability of having somebody on the water authorities who also has those interests; that is, of the committee, or committees, which will be set up under the guidelines. That is a strong argument for saying that there is a case for this amendment on the basis of the Government's own argument for specifying land drainage and fisheries.
Then I turn to the actual form of the amendment, and should like to quote from Standing Committee F on the National Heritage Bill. The Minister for the Arts was talking, at column 108, about this particular form of words used in that Bill on a number of occasions. He acknowledged that this was a difficult matter, and it was difficult to put into a Bill words which will ensure that the Prime Minister takes various things into account when nominating trustees. Having quoted the form of words which this amendment uses in this Bill, the Minister said;
"This is probably the best way of proceeding in what I readily admit is an extremely difficult area."
I hope that that means that the Government will concede that this difficult problem, which has exercised a number of people and to which a great many people have given some support, has been dealt with in this amendment in this form of words, and that they will be able to accept it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to make one point to my noble friend. Although I was not able to support him on this matter on Committee stage I shall support him because he won the vote the last time. The position follows, from what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was saying, that agriculture and fisheries, and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, have the constitutional position of appointing two members who are knowledgeable in farming or land drainage, as is specified, and in fisheries matters. This follows the construction of the 1973 Water Act. That particular provision was put into the Bill then, I may say, against the opinion of the DoE of the day. They were taking their traditional position of being against anything that they had not put down themselves. My noble friend is carrying forward that tradition in the best possible style. Joking aside, this amendment was then made because the strength of the agricultural lobby in the Commons was sufficient to win the day and oblige the Government, against their wishes, to put in this provision for agriculture and fisheries. Thus it was that two Ministers appoint in this particular way.

139
In these past 10 years there have been major developments in this world, and particularly in the world of conservation, wildlife and water recreation. Therefore, the Bill is now out of balance in terms of the day. We are all aware of this tremendous national debate, which particularly took place in this House on the wildlife Act, between the agricultural interests on the one hand, and the conservation and recreation and wildlife interests on the other. Some sort of reconciliation was hammered out in that Act. It would be only reflecting the general public feeling today if this little Bill we are putting through now made some sort of bow, at any rate, to the strong feeling there is throughout the country on these particular matters, which the noble Lord put into his amendment and which my noble friend Lord Onslow has so eloquently supported.
I wonder whether my noble friend would take this particular point, which has not been made before: that the structure of this Bill follows the 1973 Act of 10 years ago and really is out of balance, in terms of the feelings of the day, in regard to these two particular major interests of agriculture and fisheries on the one hand, and conservation of the environment generally, wildlife, and recreation on the other. It is a thought that perhaps something should go in the Bill on the lines that my noble friend Lord Onslow has put forward which would bring it back into balance.
I stress again what I said in Committee, that the disappearance of the Watersport Amenity Commission will be a serious weakness to the water industry. That admirable body gave great leadership and stimulus to all the water authorities, some of which were not as forthcoming as all that in what they were doing to provide facilities in this field of activity; they had not quite got the message that it was their public face to most of the people and that if they took trouble in terms of water recreation, game and coarse fishing, and so on, that would enhance their relationship with the public, their consumers, and be generally good for the water industry. I hope my noble friend will take back to his reluctant right honourable friend at the DoE that this structure is 10 years old, that times have changed and that it might be desirable to give further thought to the matter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be relieved of the dilemma into which he has got himself—that is, in deciding whether to press the amendment—by the Government agreeing to accept his proposal. My noble friend Lord Melchett was correct to draw attention to the parallel between the amendment and the characteristics underlying Amendment No. 3, which we were discussing not long ago and which dealt with land drainage. There are similarities between the two which should commend the amendment to the Minister.
There are, however, differences. In Amendment No. 3, something specific was being required of the Government, and they wanted it. In this case something less specific is being required. The Government are simply being asked to bear in mind the desirability of having certain characteristics or properties among the members of the authorities when their
140
appointments are being considered, a principle which is already embodied in the Bill. The Government are not being asked to agree to anything terribly great by the amendment. They are simply being asked that certain characteristics should be taken into account when appointments are being made. It should be possible to find people with knowledge of land drainage who also have knowledge of this field. This is a sensible amendment which should be adopted.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, those who have spoken for the amendment obviously speak with great conviction, and there is merit in much of what they have said. I must say at once, however, that I cannot accept the amendment, although I am not unimpressed by what has been said. The basic difficulty is that which we have had all along in dealing with the question of appointing people to represent specific interests to (as the noble Baroness, Lady White, reminded us) these small boards which have basically a management function.
As I said earlier, one of the main purposes of Clause 1 is to provide Ministers with a wide discretion on the appointment of members. The overriding qualification for membership embodies the ability to make a real contribution to the management of the authority. Having said that, I fully accept that experience in recreation matters, landscape, wildlife conservation, and so on, is relevant to the functions of water authorities; and when making our appointments, the degree of experience in those fields will, of course, be taken into account. I have no hesitation in saying that.
However, that is not the same as saying that it would be right to highlight the one area as proposed by the amendment. More generally, I assure your Lordships that the Government accept the importance of the role of the water authorities in recreation and conservation matters. There are obligations on the authorities in those areas and they will continue to carry them out. In doing so, they must ensure that they are properly informed and briefed, and we will help where we can with appointments. In addition, there will be continuing arrangements to bring together conservation interests and the water authorities, and we shall be discussing that later in the context of Amendment No. 16A.
The analogy drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, with the National Heritage Bill about the appointment of members to the Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings, if I understood him aright, is not exact because that organisation has a substantially different remit from water authorities, which are major public utilities to be run on commercial lines. I also point out what I am sure he knows—he knows that measure so well—in relation to the appointment of members to that commission: Schedule 3 of the National Heritage Bill specifies not merely the conservation of monuments and buildings, but a wide range of other areas of expertise.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was right to say that it is easy to overlook other interests when considering the composition of boards. I assure her

141
and all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment that it is a matter for concern. My noble friend Lord Nugent, as always, put the point in a practical way. While I cannot accept the amendment, I hope the House will glean from what I am saying—and, to quote my noble friend Lord Onslow, the way in which I am saying it—that there is some merit in our thinking about it once more, I appreciate that we are at a late stage of the Bill—possibly too late a stage, I readily concede—for that.
The point made by Lord Nugent about balance is valid. I think he will concede that there have been changes since 1973, not least as a result of the Wildlife Act, as it now is. That has strengthened the statutory conservation duties. The amendment is really concerned with the membership of authorities and is not quite the same as that. Nevertheless, while I should have to resist the amendment if there were a Division, which I hope there will not be, I shall want to talk about it again, and perhaps noble Lords who may feel inclined to press the matter to a Division will feel able to reserve their position to another stage.
In saying that, I must add that I should not want to get into the position we were in when discussing matters earlier in the day, when it was implied that because of my tone, I was merely suggesting putting off the date. That is not my intention. If division there must be, let it be. Nevertheless, I speak, as I hope the House will accept, with genuine concern for what has been said; but the decision must remain with those who are promoting the amendment, which, for the reasons I have given, I am not able to accept.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I understand the Minister to say there were obligations on water authorities to have regard to conservation, wildlife, the landscape and recreation. As those obligations are not contained in the Bill, may I ask him to say in which statutes they rest?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, that takes us back to some earlier debates that we had. When I said there were obligations, I was referring to obligations in a practical and moral sense—of wanting to see there was that type of information—and that kind of obligation exists. Additionally there are others. I would refer to Section 22(1) of the Water Act 1973, as amended. I am sure the noble Lord knows that well. He will know it better than I.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether my noble friend Lord Bellwin will be able to answer the next question. I am pre-disposed not to press this to a Division. I think that some of the points that he made were very valid ones and one reserves one's position at Third Reading. I should like to answer one point. This amendment is not asking that conservationists should be represented on the board. There is the difficulty of dual loyalty. One is saying that the man who is going to be on the board, or one of the men, should have "knowledge of"—which is a great difference. The amendment means that his experience should entail rather than that he should be a mouthpiece of. My noble friend also said that the boards will take into account these very important points.
142
If he can go away again, as he said that he would, and discuss with his colleagues, then if we put down at Third Reading almost a feeder amendment he can say that he has discussed it with his colleagues and that they will do their best to make sure that there is somebody who has knowledge—and I underline the word "knowledge"—rather than is actually going to represent. Then I certainly will be satisfied. One point I should like to make in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady White, is that sometimes the smaller areas had much more potential for being damaged than perhaps the Thames area, which is a big area. One cannot do much damage to Slough where there are large uninhabited areas where the natural and wild life sides may be predominant. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
Clause 2 [Limits on borrowing of water authorities]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 41, at beginning insert—
("( ) In paragraph 34(3)(b) of Schedule 3 to the principal Act (water authorities to borrow from persons other than the Secretary of State, otherwise than by way of temporary loan, only in a currency other than sterling) after the word "Treasury", there are inserted the words "either in sterling or".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment but a useful one. The present position on water authority borrowing is that they may borrow on a temporary basis either in sterling from the Secretary of State or, with the consent of the Secretary of State and the approval of the Treasury, in sterling or a non-sterling currency from some other source. However, their long-term borrowing is not so flexible. They may borrow long-term in sterling from the Secretary of State or, with his consent and Treasury approval, in a non-sterling currency from some other source.
It has been put to us on several occasions by the water authorities that their inability to borrow on the United Kingdom money market is an unreasonable restriction. We do not think that, in practice, they would find borrowing from private sources more advantageous than from the Secretary of State, as regards interest rates or other terms and conditions; and we have no immediate plans to authorise such borrowing. Nevertheless, we do not think that the restriction in legislation that would prevent it is justifiable and the purpose of this amendment is to remove the restriction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 6A:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of water authorities etc. with regard to nature conservation and the countryside
. Section 22 of the Water Act 1973 as amended by section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, is amended as follows:
At the end of subsection 4 there are inserted the following words:
"In the case of a proposed land drainage improvement scheme, the authority shall provide the Council, on request, with the detailed cost-benefit appraisal for that scheme.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6A and, with it, to speak to Amendment No. 6B. I should like to apologise for the

143
fact that I have tabled manuscript amendments this morning. I hope that all of your Lordships have managed to obtain copies which are available in the Printed Paper Office and which are the same as the amendments I tabled at Committee stage. If noble Lords would like me to do so, I should be quite happy to read out both amendments. I can see a number of noble Lords nodding, but the amendments are fairly long and I do not intend to press them. I shall be happy to explain the import of the amendments if that would satisfy the House. However, if any noble Lord would like to interrupt and ask me to read them out I shall give way. It would be quicker if we proceed on that basis.
Amendment No. 6A is about cost-benefit analysis. Those noble Lords present at Committee stage will remember that we had quite a long debate about the proposal in the amendment that cost-benefit proposals should be made available to the Nature Conservancy Council. Amendment No. 6B deals with the power of the Secretary of State for the Environment to call a public inquiry (for the purposes of the Land Drainage Act) into a land drainage scheme. The amendment proposes to extend that power to the Secretary of State for the Environment as well as to the Minister of Agriculture who at present may call an inquiry.
The purpose of my tabling these two amendments which stood in my name and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I think, is that both were withdrawn at Committee. Both were withdrawn because the Government said that these matters were being considered by an interdepartmental committee on land drainage and coast protection; that these matters would then be considered by the interdepartmental committee and in all likelihood would be covered by the consultative document which would flow from that committee's working. It was not until late last night that I heard from the Government that this was not the case, that the committee had completed its work and had not considered these two issues.
Having given that explanation for tabling the amendments, I hope that I can leave it at that without making too much of a meal of it or going in for a lot of criticism or recrimination. I very much hope that the Government can now put the matter right and say that these two points will be considered by the interdepartmental committee and covered by the consultative document. With that assurance, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move Amendment No. 6A.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I totally understand the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has put down his manuscript amendments. I should like to apologise to him for the fact that he did not get the information earlier than he did. I realise that this was a particularly short time and I apologise to him and to the House for that. The noble Lord put down his amendment because, as he has explained, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale gave assurances at Committee stage, which were given in complete good faith, that these points would be looked at by the interdepartmental committee. The interdepartmental committee consisted of representatives of the
144
Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Welsh Office and the Treasury. My noble friend said that he would make sure that this committee also looked at the cost-benefit appraisals.
In fact it was not possible for this to be done because the committee was then concluding its deliberations, and the purpose of the committee's sitting was to discuss the administration and the financing of land drainage and coast protection. It had not been the intention that the committee should be examining the problems of cost benefit appraisals. Therefore, in so far as my noble friend gave your Lordships the impression that this would be considered in the undertaking which he gave, totally in good faith, it is only right to point out that this will not be done.
However, because of the concern which was expressed at Committee stage and as a result of Lord Melchett's amendment, which he was courteous enough to withdraw on my noble friend's assurances, we have made arrangements for these matters to be considered by the same departments which were represented on the committee. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has said, and I confirm, these matters will be included in the consultative document which will be available for public comment.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that the action we have taken is fair and honourable, and the substance of his disquiet, which he hoped to have considered by the departmental committee, will nevertheless be met by being considered by the departments concerned. Those same matters will be included in the consultative document which will be available for public comment. In that regard I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the anxieties he expressed during the Committee stage will have been met by the Government in the best possible manner.
With regard to his second amendment which is suggesting that
"The Secretary of State for the Environment or the Minister may cause to be held such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the purposes of this Act",
I think this really is a misdirection of effort. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that these deeply sensitive issues over drainage and conservation are considered both by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Environment, and that they work in close harmony together. A decision to hold a public inquiry, whoever takes it, is made on behalf of the Government and therefore it is really unnecessary to identify one Minister or the other as being the appropriate one to hold such an inquiry.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should just like to say that we ought to be grateful that the Government are taking this on board, whatever machinery has broken down in the past. I have been looking at this particular matter over the past few weeks and, as your Lordships know, it will come before this House in a minor form tomorrow afternoon. The more I look at the problem of cost-benefit analysis for this kind of work, the more it seems to me essential that the workings and the assumptions be laid open to the public and to everyone who has a right to make a judgment as to whether they should be

145
proceeded with or not. It is very important that this should happen and I think we should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for putting this forward and to the Government for seeing that the matter will be looked at really properly. I believe the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is thoroughly desirable, but presumably the undertaking given by the Government meets his point.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have no wish to dissent from my noble friend Lord Melchett; I would merely query whether a cost-benefit appraisal was really what was wanted in this sort of situation. Cost-benefit is a very useful tool and has been used for many years in dealing with projects of many kinds; but is it not quite likely that in circumstances such as he has in mind it would be at least as, and probably more, useful to adopt the technique of environmental impact assessment rather than cost-benefit appraisal?
Baroness White: My Lords, I was disquieted to hear the noble Earl say there was no real significance in the second of the two amendments. I thought he was putting over a very smooth case indeed when he said that of course the two Ministers, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, were always in the closest consultation. The fact remains that, as I understand it, it is only the Minister of Agriculture who has the statutory power in these land drainage affairs to require an inquiry.
It is a very long-standing adage that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, and the impression undoubtedly in certain circles is that this matter is to some degree weighted in favour of the agricultural interests—who are, after all, the major interest in initiating land drainage propositions—and we know very well that some of the most acute differences of view and differences of interest in recent years have arisen precisely in these areas. Surely if there is such close collaboration there would be no harm in allowing the Secretary of State for the Environment or, in appropriate cases, the Secretary of State for Wales to take up these matters on environmental grounds and not leave them exclusively in the hands of the Minister for Agriculture, who has all the appearance, at any rate, of being likely to favour farming interests in any such situations.
I am suggesting that that is not good for public confidence and that public confidence would be considerably strengthened if, in these situations where there is diversity of interest, it would be open to either Minister to initiate an inquiry where this seems to be necessary or desirable. I do not think it is good enough to say simply that the two Ministers are always buddies and that the two departments talk very happily together. Sometimes they do; but we all know perfectly well that sometimes they do not; and I repeat that it would strengthen public confidence very greatly if the Minister could appreciate that there is strong feeling on this matter in environmental circles. It would be very much better if he would look at the second amendment rather more seriously than it appears to me he may have done.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, might I suggest that we dispose of Amendment No. 6A? I only suggested
146
putting the two together because I thought the noble Earl was going to give me exactly the same reply to both amendments, for reasons which I will come to when I introduce Amendment No. 6B, which I am afraid I shall now have to do. Perhaps at that stage the noble Earl could reply to the points made by my noble friend which concern themselves exclusively with Amendment No. 6B. I am happy to give way to the noble Earl if he wishes, but otherwise I am planning to withdraw Amendment No. 6A.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I might just reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, about cost-benefit analysis, because I know there is a point of anxiety here. I should like to try to make the procedure quite clear. When an authority or an internal drainage board wishes to carry out some improvements which require grant aid, it applies to the Minister of Agriculture for approval and my department considers the whole nature of the application. The first thing to be done is to satisfy itself that where there is any environmental sensitivity the appropriate conservation authorities, such as the NCC, have been consulted. Thereafter it has to be satisfied that any scheme has passed three basic criteria. First, it must be sound technically—in other words it is going to do the job it is intended to do—and that means that the walls of the weirs or whatever it may be should be structurally and technically adequate. Secondly, the cost must be reasonable; and, thirdly, the whole exercise must be economically worthwhile. That is a statistical calculation which is carried out, and I am bound to say it is a very complicated one, not designed to determine whether a proposed improvement is suitable. It is in fact a prudent in-house financial check, which many businesses may carry out, in order to ensure that the expenditure of funds is not wasted. That is only one hurdle which any scheme has to get through. Thereafter, if there is any area of conservation sensitivity then the whole matter is referred to Ministers.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I think that to keep myself in order the noble Earl's explanation must be regarded as a lengthy intervention. That will enable me to continue my speech, withdraw the amendment and allow your Lordships to make some progress. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the assurance which he has given on cost-benefit appraisal. I appreciate that it must involve a number of people in some extra work to take this on at a late stage of the deliberations, and I am particularly grateful for that.
I would just say to my noble friend about the importance of cost-benefit appraisal, and, indeed, to some extent to reply to what the noble Earl has just said, that while there are certainly better ways of assessing the impact of schemes—maybe that is something that will emerge as a result of the consultative document; and I am sure that the economic impact assessment will be one of those—the fact of the matter is that, at the moment, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, at col. 135 of the Official Report for 8th March at Committee stage, cost-benefit assessment is
"a basic test of economic viability which every scheme must pass."

147
So it is a very important factor at the moment. Maybe it should not be, or maybe it could be done much better. That is something which will emerge from the consultative document and the comments on it.
As I said, I am very grateful to the Government on Amendment No. 6A, and I certainly accept entirely—and I think I should put it on record—that there was no bad faith or anything of that kind on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in giving me the assurance that he did during the Committee stage. Now that this is to be given extra consideration by the departments involved, we may have got more out of it than if the noble Lord been right in the first place. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 6B:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Power to hold enquiries under Land Drainage Act 1976
. The Land Drainage Act 1976 is amended in section 96 by the deletion of subsection (1) and by the substitution of a new subsection as follows:
"(1) The Secretary of State for the Environment or the Minister may cause to be held such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the purposes of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be very brief on this amendment. I said that I expected the noble Earl to give me the same reply on this amendment as he did on Amendment No. 6A. I did so because the letter that I received this morning from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, linked the two points together. If I may quote from the letter, the noble Lord stated that he had told me during the Committee stage
"that the Interdepartmental Committee on Land Drainage and Coast Protection would be considering the cost benefit appraisals and their disclosure, as well as Ministerial responsibilities for calling public enquiries into land drainage schemes".
The letter then went on to say that this was unfortunately mistaken. I quote again:
"However, as a result of your amendment, arrangements are being made for these matters"—
and I emphasise "these matters"—
"to be considered between the Departments who are represented on the Committee (which include the Treasury) and to be included in the consultative document".
In other words, the letter from the noble Lord said quite explicitly that both these matters—the matters covered by Amendments Nos. 6A and 6B—would be subject to the procedure which the noble Earl mentioned on Amendment No. 6A. I hope that the letter is right and that the noble Earl can adopt that view, particularly in the light of the very forceful arguments which my noble friend Lady White put forward a few minutes ago about the importance of including the Secretary of State among those who have the power to hold a public inquiry. Given that this is quite clearly set out in the letter, I hope that the Government will be able to stick with that. My Lords, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady White, to start with, even though she has not spoken on this amendment—she pre-empted it
148
by speaking on the previous one, because we were discussing them both together—she said that anyone must appreciate that there is very strong feeling in the conservation lobby about grants for drainage, and so on. She felt that they were weighted in favour of land drainage, as opposed to conservation. May I tell her that everyone in the Ministry of Agriculture, at the moment, is deeply appreciative of the strong feeling—and, indeed, nobody in the farming community is not appreciative of the very strong feeling—about conservation. I can only assure her.
I will give her one example to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred at Committee stage: that of Halvergate. There is a problem of great sensitivity between conservation and agriculture. We took the view—and there were many who called for a public inquiry—that Parliament had set up various bodies in order to resolve these problems on the ground, and that it was right that those bodies should resolve the problem. All the facts were known. It was really the question of how the facts were to be resolved that was a cause of dispute.
Both my right honourable friend Mr. King, as he now is, and myself, who had responsibility at the Ministry of Agriculture, worked closely over this. You cannot do anything other than that. The Minister of Agriculture could not take a decision so intimately sensitive as that without consulting his colleagues in the Department of the Environment. The decision—although in theory, and legally, a decision of the Minister of Agriculture—was taken in consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is how it should be, and that is how I anticipate it will always be, because there is no question of the Ministry of Agriculture railroading itself over the Department of the Environment—far from it. I hope that the noble Baroness will realise that that is the case; but, obviously, all these matters which have been considered and suggested today will be given further consideration.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I press him to say whether what he said in the previous debate, and what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said in the letter to me this morning, is the right version so far as the Government are concerned? Is this something which will be treated in the way that the cost-benefit appraisal will be treated, or not? I think that the noble Earl ought to clear up that matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see that. I think that the two issues—what the cost-benefit appraisal does and how it is to be effected—are slightly different. That will be considered by the departments concerned and this discussion will be considered by them as well. But I am bound to give the House the view which obtains at the moment, which is that when a Minister gives a decision on matters of this nature it is done in consultation with his counterpart.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I take it from what I heard the noble Earl say—I shall have to check Hansard carefully tomorrow and reserve my right to return to this, if the position is not entirely clear—that the letter from the noble Lord,

149
Lord Skelmersdale, was accurate in this respect. If that is the case, I am very grateful again, just as I was on cost-benefit appraisal, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 6C:
Before clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Wildlife and landscape representatives on regional land drainage committees.
. Section 2 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 is amended as follows:
After subsection (1)(c) insert:
"(d) 2 members appointed by the Secretary of State being persons with a special knowledge of wildlife or landscape conservation.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the same points apply to this amendment as to the previous amendment. This amendment concerns the appointing of people to land drainage committees and suggests that two people should be appointed with special knowledge of wildlife or landscape conservation. In this case, the amendment which I moved at Committee stage—which is exactly the same as this one—was considered and withdrawn, partly on the basis that it would be considered by the interdepartmental committee and partly on the understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would look at the matter himself again. He very kindly did that and he wrote me an undated letter which I received quite soon after the Committee stage, in which he went into this point in some detail. I did not agree with what he said in the letter, but that is not really the point that I want to raise now.
At col. 146 of the Official Report for 8th March, the noble Lord said:
"this is also something which would come within the remit of the interdepartmental committee on land drainage."
This point was not covered in the letter which I received this morning, although it must clearly be affected by exactly the same factors. I was told at the Committee stage that it would come within the remit of the interdepartmental committee, but that committee has finished its work. So as I understand it, that assurance was wrong. I hope that the same factors will apply here as apply to the two previous amendments and that arrangements will be made for the matter to be covered. That amendment received a great deal of support from a number of your Lordships. It was withdrawn on the basis that all these land drainage matters were currently being considered by the interdepartmental committee. I said at the Committee stage that interdepartmental committees producing documents are fairly vague creatures. I had not appreciated at the time quite how vague this one was. If the noble Earl is to deal with this point, I hope he will accept that exactly the same considerations apply here as apply to the two previous amendments and that it ought to be treated by officials from the various departments in the same way. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I long to be as helpful as I can to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but I think there is a difference between the first two amendments and this amendment. The letter that my noble friend sent to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and which he
150
received this morning referred to the cost-benefit appraisals, and so forth, which my noble friend had undertaken would be considered by the interdepartmental committee—which, as I explained, has now ceased. What my noble friend also undertook to do at the Committee stage was to consider the points which the Committee had been discussing: the matters to which the noble Lord refers under Amendment No. 6C.
My noble friend wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, giving the Government's considered views. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will recall from the letter he received that my noble friend said:
"You will gather from this that after further consideration I remain of the opinion I held at the Committee stage; namely, that in view of the statutory duty imposed by Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, as amended by Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, there is no need for the proposal".
That remains the Government's view. Under Sections 2 and 3 of the Land Drainage Act, each regional land drainage committee may have a maximum of 17 members. The chairman must be one of the Minister's appointees to the authority itself. The remaining members include some appointed by the Minister, two by the water authority and a number by or on behalf of the constituent councils.
Before the passing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act the Minister of Agriculture had the responsibility to have regard to the interests of conservation, but under that Act the obligations have now been very considerably strengthened, in so far as the Minister now has a specific duty to further the interests of conservation. That obligation on the Minister is also an obligation which falls upon the authorities and the drainage boards. It is the duty of the authorities in carrying out their work to further the interests of conservation. I do not think that it would be suitable to incorporate two people on to land drainage committees whose only credential for being so appointed is that they will be interested in wildlife or conservation, because it is the duty of the Minister and of the authorities to cover precisely the points which those two people would be appointed, under the noble Lord's amendment, to cover. Therefore the view of the Government is the same as it was before: that it would not be right to appoint two people specifically for that purpose.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I am not at all happy about the noble Earl's answer. To say that I am extremely unhappy would be putting it mildly. I was quite happy with the procedure which the Government adopted for putting right what was a serious mistake at the Committee stage: that the first two matters covered by the four amendments which I put down would be reconsidered by the officials involved and looked at and covered by the consultative document. The fourth amendment is on a very narrow and relatively minor point. It is not a matter of public policy and it comes outside the considerations which apply to the first three amendments. But I do not think it is right for the Government to say quite clearly and unambiguously at col. 146 of the Committee stage of the Bill on 8th March that something comes within the remit of the interdepartmental committee on land drainage. Indeed, there was a proposal from the Government, which was circulated to a number of

151
noble Lords interested in the Bill, that all four amendments should be taken together at the Committee stage, on the basis that all of them would be covered by the interdepartmental committee and that the response to all four amendments from the Government would be, "This is under consideration; we are not going to do anything at the moment"—a fairly standard reply.
It is one thing to make as serious a mistake as that and to get the Committee to withdraw all four amendments, as we did. This third amendment was the one where the Government were pressed most strongly. Therefore they undertook to look at the point to see if anything could be done in advance of the interdepartmental committee publishing a consultative document. I received a letter from the noble Lord saying, in effect, that nothing could be done. That letter did not mention that the interdepartmental committee no longer existed and had not considered this point.
Then this morning I received a letter—which I heard about over the telephone last night—which said that the interdepartmental committee had not been able to consider two of these points but that arrangements would be made for the officials to do so and that they would be covered in the consultative document. I am very happy about that—although there was a hiccup over the second, as to whether it did or did not apply. But we have resolved that matter satisfactorily. However, the letter which I received this morning made no mention of the fact that the Committee of your Lordships' House had been misled as to the true state of affairs. The noble Earl is now saying that the Government wish to stick with the view they originally expressed, with very little by way of an apology for the fact that the Committee was misled and has not yet been put right on the matter. With great respect, I do not believe that this is the way for any Government to treat your Lordships' House and its deliberations. It makes it quite impossible for us sensibly to consider amendments. And even at the very late stage of receiving a letter this morning, apparently I had not been given the correct information about the Government's intentions.
It would be foolish to press an amendment which has been circulated in manuscript very late in the day, particularly as I had assumed that the answer was going to be that all these matters would be considered, but I shall certainly come back at the next stage of the Bill with an amendment. In the circumstances I think I shall be justified in doing so. In the meantime, however, I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I may have the leave of the House once again—I do not wish to abuse the leave of the House—to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. He has been peculiarly hard over this. I did apologise at the beginning for the fact that the noble Lord received this letter late. That was a great misfortune and I realise that it was extremely inconvenient. I apologised, and I do so again unreservedly. But the noble Lord is being unfair. He said that the letter which he received this morning did not refer to this amendment, or to the other one. The
152
noble Lord is quite right; it did not. This was because my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said in col. 149:
"I shall take every opportunity to reconsider both what I have said and what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and others have said during the course of this short debate"
on an amendment which was similar to the one which we are now discussing.
He continued:
"I shall certainly take it away and look at the whole thing, but I must in all fairness and honesty say that, as far as I can see at the moment, the prognosis is not particularly good".
So my noble friend took away the amendment. He thought about it and he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on 30th March explaining what the Government's conclusions then were. I do not think it is fair of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to say that he has not been treated fairly over this. The letter which the noble Lord received this morning referred to the first two amendments. As to the second two amendments, my noble friend considered these and replied on 30th March, giving the Government's view then. If I might say so to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he had that letter on 30th March and if he was dissatisfied with the letter, he could have put down an amendment on the Marshalled List as opposed to an amendment in manuscript form.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I gave way to the noble Earl to allow him to make that intervention, but I had no indication until this morning, or last night, that the interdepartmental committee on land drainage was not looking at all these points. It is on the record in Hansard from the Committee stage that in the case of this point, the membership of land drainage committees would come within the remit of the interdepartmental committee. My complaint to the noble Earl, which he really forced me to make by not doing what I suggested in order to resolve this matter, is that I have not been told yet that, so far as the membership of land draining drainage committees is concerned, this is not being considered by the interdepartmental committee. There is in Hansard a clear commitment by the Government to your Lordships, which says:
"this is also something which would come within the remit of the interdepartmental committee on land drainage".
That appears in Hansard for 8th March (col. 146). That is a clear commitment by the Government to consider something. The Government have not withdrawn it. It was not withdrawn in the letter I received this morning and was not withdrawn in the undated letter which the noble Earl says I received on 30th March, and which I am quite happy to accept that I did. That letter, as I understood it, dealt with another point; whether the Government would take action on this matter in advance of the interdepartmental committee issuing its report and its consultative document.
It was in that context that, at the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made the remarks which the noble Earl has just quoted from col. 149 of Hansard for 8th March. I do not feel that I am being unfair on the Government. I think that the noble Earl is treating me a little shabbily, if I may say so. It is perfectly clear in Hansard for the Committee stage that this matter was to be considered by the interdepartmental committee. That assurance, given

153
to your Lordships and appearing in Hansard, has not yet been withdrawn—although I have learnt that, on two other matters, the interdepartmental committee has ceased to exist. It is on that basis that I make my complaint, I believe fairly, and it is on that basis that I believe it would be sensible to return to this point at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 6D:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Exemptions from drainage rates levied under Land Drainage Act 1976.
. After subsection (9) of section 68 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (Differential drainage rates and exemptions: power to make orders), there shall be added the following subsections—
"(10) Where any hereditament comprises land which is the subject of a notification under subsection (3) of section 22 of the Water Act 1973 (duties with respect to nature conservation and amenity) and is managed as a nature reserve by the Nature Conservancy Council or other approved body, an internal drainage board shall not levy any owners' drainage rates in respect of that land.
(11) In subsection (10) "approved body" means any local authority under the meaning of section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or any body registered under the Charities Act 1960 which has as one of its principal objects the management of land for nature conservation purposes.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said earlier, Amendment No. 6D covers a much more minor point. On this occasion, it was fully covered by the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, sent to me—and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the trouble to do so. As I assume that this matter also will not be covered by the interdepartmental committee, and indeed is probably too minor a point to warrant that, I merely want to put on record what has been said on this matter about reduced drainage rates for land that is managed as a nature reserve.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said in his letter that reduced rates might be paid in respect of nature reserves under the provisions of Section 67 of the Land Drainage Act 1976, which provides the opportunity for IDBs (internal drainage boards) to take account of changes in the use of the land in their district and to amend the annual values, and thus redistribute the burden of rates accordingly. The noble Lord went on to state in his letter:
"Thus if land which was previously solely in agricultural use is now used solely for conservation purposes, as a nature reserve, it would be possible for the IDB to take account of this change and reduce the annual values accordingly".
That was a very helpful comment from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for which I unreservedly express my gratitude, and I hope that we can now return to discussing matters on that basis.
I simply want to ask the Government whether they will encourage IDBs to take this action where there is a voluntary body with a substantial nature reserve in the IDB's area for which substantial drainage rates are having to be paid because of the land values on which the rates were levied. If this can be drawn to the attention of IDBs in some way by the Government, it would be very helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but there is here a technical point of considerable
154
consequence in relation to the definition of an approved body. I believe that I did mention this to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, some time before the Recess. If the subject of Amendment No. 6D is to be considered by the Government, I should like to raise a point concerning the definition of an approved body. Subsection (11) of the proposed amendment makes reference to the local authority and to the Local Government Act 1972, and goes on to state:
"or any body registered under the Charities Act 1960 which has as one of its principal objects the management of land for nature conservation purposes".
I must declare an interest in that I am the chairman of a body that is recognised as having charitable status which was created in 1919, but which is not a registered charity—but has as one of its principal objects the maintenance of an estate in the Lake District which was the home of John Ruskin. A very considerable part of that maintenance, I am assured by my manager there, is concerned with looking after that land for nature conservation purposes. Therefore, there is to my knowledge a body with charitable status—and I am sure there must be many others—which is not registered under the Charities Act 1960, but which in my view should come within the ambit of the definition of an approved body.
Then there is a second class of body, which in my view comes within the definition but which would be excluded by this proposed subsection. This class is those charities formed before the Charities Act 1960 and which are therefore exempted from registration. If I may declare another interest, I am also chairman of a small charity created before 1960. I have been advised by lawyers that it is not necessary to go to the expense and trouble of having it registered under the Charities Act 1960 because it was formed as a charity before that date.
I raise this matter because in my own experience the definition of an approved body could properly be extended to cover the two types of bodies to which I have referred; namely, those which have charitable status but which are not registered charities, and those which are charities, and which are recognised as such by the charity commissioners, but which are not registered under the Charities Act 1960.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I believe it would be best addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whose amendment this is. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I myself cannot give him an answer immediately, but I will certainly try to find one; I say that on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not be able to provide an answer; I shall certainly do my best to find an answer and write to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—and I was delighted to see that his thermometer had dropped somewhat since the last amendment—I think it will be best if I just quote Section 67(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1976. It says—and this is important:
"If a drainage board are of the opinion that the amount of the annual value of any relevant land in their district should … be increased or reduced having regard to changes in the circumstances … the board may make a determination of annual values under this section".

155
Then, in subsection (2) the Act states—and this may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran:
"If the owner or occupier of any relevant land in a drainage district is of the opinion that … the amount of the annual value of the land should be altered for the purpose there mentioned, he may request the drainage board in writing to make a determination under this section in respect of that land".
That gives the right to an owner who feels aggrieved or who feels that the circumstances have changed to write to the drainage board requesting it. So there is the opportunity for drainage boards to lower their rates, either at their own discretion or at the request of an owner. Of course it is not in the power of the Minister to direct them so to do, but I have no doubt that drainage boards will take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I would not presume to give an answer to the detailed questions which have been raised. I think it would be much safer for the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, to await any advice which the noble Earl is able to dig out rather than relying on anything that I might say. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the remarks at the end about the possibility of owners of land raising this matter and for saying that he is sure that the internal drainage boards themselves will bear it in mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Overseas activities of water authorities and statutory water companies.]
6.41 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page, 4, line 30, leave out ("Water Act 1973") and insert ("principal Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a minor error of drafting. The reference to the Water Act 1973 should be to "the principal Act" as it is described elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State shall, from time to time, issue guidance as to the criteria by reference to which he will determine any request for consent under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 25. The purpose of the Government Amendment No. 8 is to write into the Bill a specific reference to the guidance which the Secretary of State will issue on the factors he will take into consideration in granting consents in respect of the overseas activities of water authorities and statutory water companies. The amendment follows from the commitment which I gave when the matter was debated in the Committee of your Lordships' House on 8th March to consider further representations on the proposed guidelines which were published on 24th February.
Our aim throughout has been to produce agreed guidance which will protect the interests of the water authorities' customers and will safeguard the private sector from undesirable competition. The guidance is
156
designed to enable the private sector, in collaboration with the public sector, to take greater advantage of the growing opportunities for British exports in overseas markets.
My Lords, in the debate on 8th March on Amendment No. 24 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, several noble Lords spoke of the concern of private sector consultants that the guidance given should be written into the Bill. It was put to us that a future Secretary of State might not feel bound by non-statutory guidance and that a specific reference to the guidance in the legislation would provide an important additional assurance for private sector exporters. Since that debate, we have had two meetings, the first with representatives of the private sector consultants, including the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, himself, and the second with the consultants and with the water authorities. We have been able to explore their concerns in much greater detail, and I am pleased to report to the House that we have now reached agreement on changes to be made to the guidance. Your Lordships will notice that I refer to guidance—the word used in the Government amendment on this point—and not guidelines. I hope that this helps to clear up the confusion which crept in about the different guidelines when we last discussed this Bill.
In the course of our discussions—and indeed at the Committee stage debate—the view was expressed that the guidance should be written into the text of the Bill itself. That indeed is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 10 and 25. In our view, this is not the right course. To write into the Bill the details of the way in which the Secretary of State should exercise his consent powers would be an inflexible and over-restrictive approach. To keep the guidance separate from the legislation would keep it free of unnecessary restrictions which might very well prevent water authorities from offering help which consultants would like them to offer. It would enable changes to be made to the guidance if at any time that should prove necessary, without recourse to primary legislation, which, despite what was said at Committee stage, is a cumbersome process and one which would be subject to the very severe constraints operating on the parliamentary timetable. In our view, the primary safeguard for the private sector must be the development of close co-operation and understanding between public and private sectors. This necessarily requires flexibility and adaptability, and I am confident that the approach we are following is more likely to bring this about than a code of statutory rules and regulations.
At the same time, however, we must have regard to the serious concern of the consulting engineers that there is as yet no reference to the guidance at all in the legislation. Since the guidance is designed, among other things, to provide protection for the private sector, we agree that a reference to the existence of the guidance should be included in the statute. The effect of our own Amendment, No. 8, is to require that guidance be issued setting out the basis on which the consent powers will be exercised. It will not be possible for a Secretary of State, for instance, to ignore his own guidance and arrive at a totally inconsistent decision. This is an important provision.
Similarly, I should like to emphasise that we do not intend to have frequent revisions of the guidance. Although I earlier stressed the flexibility of our approach, so as to allow for amendment, we envisage this process only when the clearest justification exists. I should like in this content to offer two assurances. The first is that any proposed changes in the guidance would, as a matter of course, be preceded by full consultation with the interests concerned and in particular with the water authorities and the consulting engineers. The second is that we are prepared to make a small amendment to our own amendment to make it clear that changes to the guidance will not flow as a matter of routine. It has been put to us that the words "from time to time" imply a frequent process. I am advised that without those words it would nevertheless be possible to make changes to the guidance, and in view of the concern which has been understandably expressed on this point, the Government will make an amendment at Third Reading to remove the words "from time to time". In our view, this is a preferable approach to that adopted in Amendment No. 9, which states what we are all agreed is the objective, but which nevertheless runs into problems over definition—for instance, what is the British water industry? My Lords, I hope that with those words and in the light of these assurances I may beg leave to move the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, Amendment No. 8 has been moved, and there is an amendment to this amendment to which we must now proceed.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9:
Line 1, leave out ("from time to time") and insert ("at any time so as to improve the total capability of the overseas activities of the British Water Industry").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wanted to express my gratitude to the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 8, subject to one small modification which I was going to put forward in this amendment, because it constitutes a very significant step by the Government towards safeguarding the present very large international business and high reputation of the British water industry. I should also like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, personally for the assistance he gave after the Committee debate on my amendment to which he has referred. I would also thank his advisers at the Department of the Environment for arranging meetings, before the Recess and during the Recess, in order to discuss this extremely important matter. As the noble Lord the Minister has indicated, I had the privilege of attending one of those meetings arranged by the representatives of the Department of the Environment with representatives of British water consultants from the public authorities and from the private sector. This meeting, if I may say so, was very ably and sympathetically chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Giles Shaw.
In view of the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in regard to the deletion of the words
158
"from time to time" in the amendment that he has moved, as that was the main object of my Amendment No. 9, and relying upon the assurances given by the Minister, with the leave of the House, I shall not move Amendment No. 9.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, could I just add one word to the debate which has just concluded with the noble Lord not moving his amendment? It is this. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the Department of the Environment on making this arrangement. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is right that the impact of our consultants in overseas markets is enormous. They earn huge sums of money for the benefit of this country and do our country good in every way. Quite rightly they are jealous that they should not suffer from unfair competition from a public body financed by public funds.
But the practical position on the ground—especially in the third world with developing countries—is that often it is a state corporation which is placing the contract for some major development and they are very accustomed to dealing with governmental bodies. If they want a package, as they very often do, for water services in an undeveloped country, there is a part for a water authority to play—in the past the National Water Council—as a co-ordinating agent to put together the package with the consultants who will then carry out the work. That could have been a catalyst which would have brought more business to the consultants rather than taking it away from them. The criteria which my noble friend and the Secretary of State will provide in the Department of the Environment which will guide the activities of water authorities in this sphere will ensure that they do not encroach on the consultants' world but that they act in this supplementary fashion which will, I think, be entirely beneficial to all parties.
I thought that it was just worth adding that point, because I well understand the apprehensions of the consultants and I salute their achievements and enterprise all over the world just as warmly as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I am so very glad to hear that a happy solution has been found to this provision. I am sure that it will benefit them.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, before we leave Amendment No. 8, this might be a convenient moment for me to raise a rather different point about the activities of the British water industry overseas of which I have given notice to the House and to my noble friend at two earlier stages of the Bill. It is to seek assurances—and perhaps a blessing from my noble friend, if that is not asking a bit much after the contretemps with which we began the proceedings—for Water Aid and, incidentally, to take this opportunity to tell your Lordships about Water Aid, a new and rather novel British charity.
Water Aid is the charitable response of the United Kingdom water industry to the United Nations decade for better water supply and better sanitation for the third world. It began in 1971. Water Aid has been nurtured by the National Water Council and sponsored by the regional water authorities, the water

159
companies and other parts of the United Kingdom water industry. I am one of its trustees. Water Aid, rather like Heineken beer, aims to reach those parts of the third world that are not reached by multi-million pound Government sponsored schemes, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford was speaking, or funded by internationally financed contracts for water conservation, water supply and sewage disposal.
Water Aid works in close concert with and in a similar small-scale style to the Save the Children Fund, Oxfam, Christian Aid and VSO. In fact Mr. David Collett, the director of Water Aid, was previously director of VSO. It draws its funds and its support from charitable donations and voluntary offers of overseas service from individuals and small groups of individuals in the United Kingdom water industry. Water Aid will increasingly be engaged in spreading information in this country beyond the water industry about the progress of the water decade in the third world. I could say much more, but I think that that is enough by way of an intervention in the Report stage of a Bill.
All that I specifically ask for that arises from the Bill is an assurance from my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will take care, when it comes to applying the guidelines associated with Clause 5, not to inhibit in any way the unofficial and uncommercial charitable activities of Water Aid in its charitable work in the third world. If my noble friend can publicly indicate his blessing for these activities that will be a great encouragement to those working for Water Aid—working away in places like Sierra Leone, Uganda and elsewhere under the auspices of this charity. It will also be an encouragement to those of us who are engaged in putting Water Aid on the wide map of United Kingdom charitable ventures.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is slightly dangerous territory. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, thanks me personally and my advisers for meeting him, although in fact I did not meet him and his advisers on that occasion. Then my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is not now in the Chamber, praised me. I must be most careful not to make myself unworthy of those two accolades, especially after recent debates. I, in turn, am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the most constructive attitude that he has taken over this matter and for the way that he has very generously not moved his amendment to the Government amendment. I fully appreciate what he has done and also, I hope, his reasons for it.
If I may just comment on what my noble friend Lord Nugent said—although he is not in his place—he spoke of the immense value of the private sector overseas, a fact which was brought across very clearly in our debates in the Committee stage. But he also presented the other side of the coin—that we should not forget the equally valuable contribution of the public sector in so often setting up the deals which the private sector subsequently complete. How I agree with him!
I must thank my noble friend Lord Sandford, in turn, for giving notice of a tender plant. I must say that after yesterday perhaps the word "charity" is a little
160
more tender in my mind than it might otherwise be. However, so be it. He asked specifically about Water Aid. The Government have always attached great importance to water supply projects in their overseas aid programme. Clean drinking water and sanitation have always been high on the list of priorities. We have also given high priority to projects initiated by the agencies of the United Nations and a very large proportion of our aid funds are allocated for this purpose.
The inception of the United Nations international drinking water supply and sanitation decade, which we very warmly support, has of course put additional focus on these activities. As an additional contribution to the United Nations decade, the Overseas Development Administration has been able to allocate an extra £4·4 million in technical co-operation to assist in strengthening organisations in developing countries which are responsible for water supply and sanitation. Water Aid has played an important role in mobilising professional, practical, and financial support from both the public and the private sectors of the water industry for water development overseas. It has made a particularly valuable contribution in publicising the needs and aims of the United Nations decade.
Like my noble friend, the Government have a high opinion of Water Aid and have encouraged its involvement in many projects, supported under the pound-for-pound scheme. My noble friend said that Water Aid is a registered charity, the aims of which are endorsed by Government, who would not seek to put any obstacle in its way. I understand that the water authority chairmen have confirmed their positive support for Water Aid, and have indicted that their headquarters will be able to offer accommodation and other facilities. The purpose of the consent procedures under Clause 5 is to protect the interests of water authorities, statutory water companies, and consumers, and to prevent undesirable competition. It is certainly not the intention that it should in any way interfere with the activities of a registered charity, such as Water Aid. I hope that I have answered all the points made in this brief debate. I commend Amendment No. 8.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
("(6) The said criteria shall be modified by the Secretary of State in the light of the aim of the Secretary of State as set out in Schedule (Guidelines relating to overseas activities), to engender close co-operation between the private and public sectors as defined in the said Schedule (Guidelines relating to overseas activities) so as to improve the total capability of the British Water Industry to carry out work overseas.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is not in his place, but, judging from the speech that he was good enough to make on the Government amendment, Amendment No. 8, I am sure that he will support Amendment No. 10. With the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 25, which is in my name and the

161
name of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein.
The object of the amendment is to set out how the criteria in the documents entitled "Guidance Notices" should be dealt with in general terms by the Secretary of State. I wish to point out that there is a mistake in the amendment as printed, because it refers to a schedule entitled, "Guidelines relating to overseas activities". In formulating Amendment No. 25 I did not use the word "guidelines," though the words "Guidelines relating to overseas activities" have now been included. In Amendment No. 25 I have at all times referred to the heading as "Criteria Relating to Overseas Activities"—not "Guidelines".
As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, there are instances where there are government-to-government approaches in regard to feasibility studies for water works, sewerage schemes and drainage schemes all over the world. That government-to-government approach acts as a catalyst, but my instructions are that such approaches are not taking place very frequently, though in the future the public and private sectors will possibly work more closely together than they have done in the past.
It is necessary for the following reason for me to speak to Amendment No. 25 in some detail. As printed in the Marshalled List, the amendment is substantially in the form that was agreed between the water authority representatives from the public and the private sectors and the representatives of the Department of the Environment during the Easter Recess. In Amendment No. 25 the first three paragraphs are headed, "Criteria relating to overseas activities"—not "Guidelines", as at present printed. The words of the first three paragraphs are not identical to those of the "Guidance Notices" as agreed with the Department of the Environment. They have been amended, but in no way has the main direction of the paragraphs been altered. For instance, the first paragraph states that,
"Overseas work may be undertaken by a water authority or a statutory water company or any body which may comprise a successor to the International Advisory Service of the National Water Council hereinafter called 'the bodies'".
Paragraph 2 sets out the aim of the Secretary of State, as agreed with the representatives at the meetings recently held. As the noble Lord the Minister has indicated, the aim is,
"to engender close co-operation between the bodies and Consulting Engineers, Contractors and Suppliers in the private sector (hereinafter called 'the private sector') who it is expected will spearhead the British Water Industry's export activities, so as to improve the total capability of the British Water Industry to carry out work overseas."
The phrase referring to the private sector as spearheading the British water industry's export activities is taken from the agreed guidance, and the phrase stating that the aim is,
"to improve the total capability of the British Water Industry to carry out work overseas".
is taken from the speech of the Minister in the other place.
Paragraph 3 recognises what has been emphasised in the other place and before your Lordships: that the bodies—that is to say, the members of the public sector—
162
"have wide experience in the United Kingdom, particularly in operation, management and training, which expertise largely complements that of the private sector".
Now we come to paragraphs 4 to 14 inclusive, the words of which are identical to those of the guidance notice that was agreed with the representatives of the Department of the Environment, and I can go through them quite quickly. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 refer to reporting to the Secretary of State which the bodies—that is to say, representatives of the public sector—must carry out when they apply for consent to do any overseas business. Paragraph 6 is of considerable importance. Because they are financed from public funds, the public sector bodies must, if a loss appears in a contract, report it at once to the Secretary of State, and indicate how they intend to minimise it.
Next we come to paragraph 7, which is headed "Financial", and which deals with questions relating to keeping accounts. Paragraph 7(b) states that the bodies—the public authorities and the public water companies—must,
"so discharge their overseas business that, taking one year with another, revenue received is not less than sufficient to meet outgoings".
Paragraph 7(c) contains a very important provision, which has been agreed; namely, that these public bodies shall,
"seek to earn a proper commercial rate of return on any money which is invested in their overseas activities".
Next, under the heading, "Limiting of Liabilities", there are three paragraphs which I need not read in detail. Here the aim is to ensure that when they enter into contracts abroad, public bodies shall enter into insurances in regard to possible losses or difficulties arising in the course of the work. When dealing with contracts involving hundreds of millions of pounds the private sector has to give bonds to ensure that if, by any chance, anything goes wrong in the course of a contract, the contracting firms can stand any losses and pay certain sums to the persons who have been injured.
Paragraph 11 deals with general consents which the Secretary of State will consider on any application by public bodies that deals with overseas matters. The last three lines are of significance, setting out that these general consents,
"will also be subject to limits on the size of individual contracts and on the total current commitments for work in progress of each individual body".
The last paragraph to which I need refer is paragraph 13(e), which says that specific consent will also be required for a public body for,
"contracts which include any significant involvement in the preparation of detailed design, specifications, working drawings or supervision of construction, or the subletting or contracting to others of such work".
Lastly, paragraph 14 states:
"When considering an application for specific consent, the Secretary of State will have regard to the effect of doing so upon the private sector and to the possibility of undesirable competition arising".
It seems to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, indicated, that a spirit of co-operation is now being built up between the public authorities and the private sector which cannot but do good to the economy. I may remind your Lordships that the public authorities are at present only concerned with small projects

163
overseas. As indicated in the other place, these projects are of the order of tens of thousands of pounds. The private sector, on the other hand, is involved in projects of tens of millions, and sometimes hundreds of millions, of pounds. The fees and the revenue to the British economy are considerable. I do not propose to apologise for the length of my speech having regard to the importance of the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has indicated. I beg to move.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in the amendment he has moved in his name and to which mine is joined. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his help in this matter. I hope that it will not embarrass him unduly if I add my thanks to those already expressed for the most helpful co-operation that has been experienced by the bodies. So far as the consulting engineering industry is concerned, these have been principally the Association of Consulting Engineers and the British Consulting Bureau, both of which have been involved in discussions with his department. These have been extremely helpful.
It is the essence of the amendment moved by Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran that this spirit of co-operation should exist not only in the important overseas activities that are the main thrust of the amendment but also in bringing this matter into the legislation so that there can be no misunderstanding in the future. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that the inclusion of the schedule that spells out the criteria which, as already pointed out, have been agreed between the department, the public sector bodies and the private sector bodies, seems a valuable contribution to the process of legislation and to the clarity of the interpretation that will be required. I should like to support Lord Lloyd's endeavour and to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, who has already been so co-operative, will continue that co-operation in regard to the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, in supporting the amendment moved by Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I thank the Government for their attitude in general on this matter. There is no need for me to add to the various comments made about the overseas successes of British consulting engineers. They are widely known. They have been mentioned in the House on numerous occasions and will no doubt be mentioned again.
It is important that an arrangement has been reached in the guidelines or criteria (whatever they are to be called) so that the fears of the consulting engineers that public sector engineers might be able to compete with them for overseas contracts in an unfair manner have been resolved. I have stated before, and still believe, that these fears were greatly exaggerated. In any case the civil engineering resource embodied in these public bodies is too enormous not to be used to the utmost, whether at home or in pursuit of our export achievements.
164
I am sad that the Government do not think that the criteria should be included as a schedule to the Bill in the terms of Amendment No. 25. I recall that earlier in the day, when he was discussing Amendment No. 8, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that the schedule would be too inflexible and that it would not permit changes to be made in the future. I am not sure about that. We spoke about this matter the last time the subject was discussed in Committee. I am not convinced that time cannot be found to change legislation if the will to change it and the need to change it exist.
I have noticed with interest that, despite the Minister's misgivings, there is another schedule on the Marshalled List which appears as Amendment No. 26, immediately after Lord Lloyd's amendment, in the name of Lord Bellwin. This is a schedule of arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions by a different set of people. What I find odd is this. How does it come about that it is appropriate and flexible to put in a schedule to deal with sewerage matters but inappropriate and inflexible to put in the schedule that has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd? It seems to me that a schedule is flexible and desirable and should be put in the Bill when the Government have a fancy for it, but a schedule is inflexible and should not be included in the Bill when the Government do not care for it. I am sure that there are stronger reasons. I see that someone is going to find them. There is, however, a slight dichotomy in the Government view.
The fears of the consulting engineers, even though they might have been exaggerated, would have been much eased if the arrangements had gone into the Bill as a schedule. It would not have been very difficult for the Government to do that because they had reached agreement on the matter, anyway. Nothing was being forced on anyone. I am rather in favour of having legislation that people agree upon, rather than legislation that people do not agree upon. I hope that the message that has come to the Front Bench is that the Government should accede to Lord Lloyd's plea and that they will accept the schedule and put it into the Bill, as they propose themselves later to do with another schedule.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my scribbling is not quite keeping up with my thoughts. I apologise to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, have all supported this amendment. With respect, I think that they have supported it on a slightly false premise. I can confirm that the Government's Amendment No. 8, establishes for the water authorities and for the benefit of both them and the private sector so far as exports go, guidance which has statutory force. Once "guidance", "guidelines" or whatever it may be, is put into an Act of Parliament it has all the force that all our Acts of Parliament have.
What I said when I was speaking to Amendment No. 8 still stands. We cannot agree to putting the text of guidelines into legislation. Incidentally, even if we did so, this schedule is very far removed from legislative drafting in any event; in other words, it would have to be substantially redrafted. I also

165
confirm that the cockshy, if you like, of the new revised guidelines of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is pretty well correct and of course we continue to support the text of guidance agreed at the meetings before Easter. But we are not happy, for the reasons that I have already enumerated, about putting it into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, made an interesting charge. He asked: what is the difference between this and our Amendment No. 26? The answer is that this amendment might very well have to be changed—I cannot say how and I cannot say when. However, our Amendment No. 26 is an update of Section 15 of the Water Act 1973. In other words, we are using a legislative opportunity to update that particular Act of Parliament. Assuming the House agrees to Amendment No. 26—and I have no reason at this moment to suppose that your Lordships will disagree with it—I have heard no murmurs that there will be any need to change this. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the situations are slightly different. The noble Lord reiterated his point on the legislative timetable which he made very forcibly and with great effect in Committee. But having read and reread very carefully what he said, I regret to say that I really have no further views than those which I reported at that time.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for dealing with these three or four amendments, including Amendment No. 25. I am grateful for the support that has been given by other Members of the House to my amendment. But the way in which the debate has progressed has shown that there is something to be said for an amendment of the procedures of this House. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, speaking to Amendment No. 10—the one which I have just moved—and also to Amendment No. 25, to which I also spoke at very great length, the common sense and practical way to proceed would be to allow me, under the rules of the House, to move Amendment No. 25. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, have been concerned with the substance of Amendment No. 25.
Having this point in mind and wishing to save the time of the House, I telephoned the Minister's office and I was informed that there was no way in which I could now, as I should like to do, move Amendment No. 25. So I shall sit here with great patience and listen to the House ploughing through all the amendments before Amendment No. 25 is called formally some time tonight, I hope. However, I can console the House that the speech that I shall make in moving that the long Amendment No. 25 should be included in the Bill, will be brief. I shall very briefly—and I hope cogently—deal with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in saying in advance that he is unable to accept that amendment. But I hope that, in view of the gratitude that has fallen upon the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, he may, after dinner, be more flexible on the matter than he is at present. I see that he wants to interrupt me and so I shall give way.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to correct a slight impression that I certainly received and I do not know whether other noble Lords received. When two amendments hang together—that is to say, a schedule amendment and a substantive amendment as in this case—the noble Lord either has to move Amendment No. 10, in which case they would naturally go together, or I am afraid he is not allowed to move Amendment No. 25 after dinner.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful for that intervention because it is quite contrary to the advice that I obtained from the Minister's office this afternoon. Having regard to the note as to the grouping of the amendments to the Water Bill at the Report stage—that is, Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 25—I accordingly telephoned the Minister's office, because we were invited to ring him up if there were any questions. I rang up Mr. Gareth Davies and I said that I should like to move Amendment No. 10—which I have done—and that I also should like to move Amendment No. 25 immediately afterwards, because those two amendments had been grouped together. I was assured that that could not be done. Therefore, as advised, I shall have to wait until Amendment No. 25 is called and then make my little speech—and I assure noble Lords that it will be quite a brief speech—thereafter.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not the case that if Amendment No. 10 falls, as it seems likely to do, Amendment No. 25 falls with it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie. That was exactly the position that I was attempting to explain, which means that the noble Lord will not be able to move his Amendment No. 25 either immediately or after dinner.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, asking that Amendment No. 25 is moved now, jointly with Amendment No. 10?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, that cannot be done. The point is that the noble Lord has moved Amendment No. 10 and has spoken also to Amendment No. 25, to which I spoke. He then has to decide what course he is going to pursue with regard to Amendment No. 10, and the balance as regards Amendment No. 25 hangs on the course he chooses to pursue. That is within Standing Orders.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful again to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. So what he is encouraging me to do is to withdraw Amendment No. 10 at this stage? I am only asking for clarification about this matter because this advice is totally contrary to what I received this afternoon from the Minister's office. He is inviting me to withdraw Amendment No. 10 so that I can speak on Amendment No. 25 after dinner?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, with the leave of the House, that was not what I was saying. I was saying that the noble Lord has two possible courses of action. He can either not withdraw Amendment No. 10, in which case we will discover what happens to it, or he can withdraw Amendment No. 10. If he withdraws Amendment No. 10, he will be unable to speak further to Amendment No. 25.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I think that the only way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, can move Amendment No. 25 is actually to move Amendment No. 10 and carry it. If he carries it, he can then move Amendment No. 25. If he does not, he cannot.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 6 [Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions]:
7.31 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Clause 6 and insert the following new clause—
("6.—(1) The following section is substituted for section 15 of the principal Act—
Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions.
"Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions.
15.—(1) It shall be the duty of every water authority and of every relevant authority whose area is wholly or partly in the area of the water authority to endeavour to make arrangements for the relevant authority to discharge, as respects their area, the sewage functions of the water authority.
(2) Schedule 4A to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of supplementing this section."
(2) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there are inserted, as Schedule 4A, the provisions set out in Schedule (Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions) to this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11 and at the same time to speak to the associated Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 26, 29 and 30. Before I go further, I should just like to mention that there is a small printing error in Amendment No. 26 as printed on the Marshalled List: in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4A the word "whatever" should read "whenever".
When we discussed the question of sewerage "agency" arrangements in Committee, I said that the Government wished to consider it further and that we would return to it at Report stage. These amendments, which are significantly different from the ones we had talbled for Committee, are the fruits of our further thought.
As I said in Committee, the Government's guiding principle is that the sewerage functions required by the Public Health Acts should be carried out as effectively and efficiently as possible. We expect water authorites and, to use the terminology of the section, "relevant authorites" to share this principle. We have studied carefully the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and of your Lordships' Select committee on Science and Technology; the many reponses we received to the proposals for amendments which we put forward last autumn; and, last but not
168
least, the points made in our brief debate in Committee.
Our main conclusion is that agency arrangements should continue unless there are good reasons in specific cases why they should end. But both the MMC and the Select Committee found that the present terms of the arrangements stood in the way of efficiency; and that, to remedy this, clear powers of control should rest with the water authorities with whom overall responsibiltiy for sewerage lies. Our amendments are therefore designed to ensure that agency arrangements continue, or are set up, wherever this would be cost-effective, while providing for a proper degree of control for water authorities.
Accordingly, our revised amendments retain the duty on water authorities and relevant authorities to endeavour to make arrangements. They provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations laying down requirements for arrangements. They make changes to the ways in which arrangements can be ended or varied, in particular providing a right of appeal by relevant authorities to the Secretary of State against decisions by a water authority. They also provide for transfer and compensation of officers affected by changes to the arrangements.
Of course, the duty is not an absolute one. It is to endeavour to make arrangements. There are already a number of cases where agency arrangements were never set up or have been ended by agreement. The amendments retain the existing provisions for the parties to agree not to have arrangements, or to have only partial ones covering, for instance, revenue works but not capital. They also deal with the question on new arrangements raised by my noble friend Lord Sandford. Subject to some limitations, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State for a relevant authority where a water authority turns down a request to set up new arrangements.
Turning to the regulation-making power, I should stress that it is designed to lay down the main requirements for arrangements, not to settle their terms in detail. We have it in mind to follow the recommendations of the MMC; for instance, that there should be clear powers for water authorities to ensure compliance with their regional strategies and priorities. But I am happy to give an undertaking that the Government will fully consult both local authorities and water authorities before any regulations are made.
As for ending and varying arrangements, the amendments retain the provision for this to happen by agreement and the Government expect the authorities, as responsible public bodies, to make every effort to reach agreement. If, in default of such agreement, an appeal is made to the Secretary of State, he would expect to favour the course which, subject to the circumstances of the individual case, appeared likely to be the most cost-effective, taking account of the position for both parties.
We have made significant changes to the amendments I tabled earlier. Our aim is to reflect more clearly the Government's view that agency arrangements should normally continue, but with terms designed to improve efficiency. More broadly, our intention is to harness together the local involvement and knowledge of the relevant authorities

169
with the wider regional perspective and resources which the water authorities can bring to bear in the interests of the customers, who at the end of the day must pay for this service. I commend the amendments to your Lordships' House.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for going to such a great deal of trouble over the arrangements for the sewerage functions. I should like to thank him not only as regards this clause but as regards other clauses as well. I know that this was the subject of quite a long discussion in the Committee stage. I accept that it is a complicated procedure. But the Minister has gone to a lot of trouble and he has made it much more realistic than it was in the past and, perhaps I could also say, fairer—fair to both sides, if I can use that phrase: the local authorities and the water authorities. On many occasions I criticise the Minister. This time I am saying, "Thank you for giving practically everything for which we asked".
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment. I like to think that with this he and I can say that we have patched up our quarrel of four o'clock or so. In introducing this range of amendments, he has done everything for which the local authorities were asking—if I may speak for the metropolitan authorities as well as for the district councils—and rather more. We are most grateful to him for it. If he were to meet me in the bar when we adjourn, I should like to offer him a drink on the strength of it.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, my interest in this amendment derives from my chairmanship of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which produced a report on research and development in the water industry. The interest of the committee and the reasons for it were fully and very ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in moving an amendment at the Committee stage which stood in her name and in mine. I need not therefore take up the time of this House in recapitulating her remarks. Suffice it to say that the committee's interest was to improve the efficiency of the industry; that this needs the application of up-to-date technology; and that the existing agency arrangements, in some cases at least, turned out to be a hindrance in this respect.
The committee found that the water authorities were at a disadvantage owing to the inflexibility of the existing arrangements under which it was very hard for the water authorities to vary them. The committee was, of course, aware of the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report about agency arrangements in the North-West and Anglian Water Authority areas, and the committee recognised that in many cases the agencies are in a position to carry out sewerage functions efficiently.
Now the Government, as they said they would, have brought forward this amendment to deal with this situation, and although I found the drafting perhaps a little obscure, it seems to meet the Select Committee's main point, and I therefore welcome it. However, I should like an assurance from the Minister on two
170
points. First, that this amendment creates a true agency relationship between the water authorities and the district councils. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Schedule appear to establish this, and to make the main criterion the efficiency of the industry, to which your Select Committee attach such importance.
However, the wording of paragraph 2 of the Schedule is very general.
"Arrangements … shall be made with a view to ensuring that their sewerage functions, taken as a whole, are carried out efficiently".
I am not quite clear about the significance or the interpretation of the words "taken as a whole". Finally, I hope that this compromise text will not remain in the dead letter office but will, in the intention of the Government, lead to change where change is needed.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I just say that I really did omit to mention the role that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, had played in bringing this matter forward in the first instance. I recall so well the Second Reading debate when we were very much on the receiving end of much criticism, and in consequent discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in particular. I think that the House would have to concede to him a great part in influencing our thinking, as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, my noble friend Lord Sandford, and others. In particular, I feel that I ought to have said that before.
As to the assurance that the noble Lord asks of me, I will say that his interpretation is, to the best of my knowledge, correct and that I think there is no difficulty about this. I take his point about the wording, but I am assured that it is as we have said and as he wishes it to be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, Clause 7 has been recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. Therefore, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 12 to 16A at this stage.
Clause 11 [Short title and commencement, etc.]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 8, line 15, leave out ("5") and insert ("6").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and beg leave to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 18, at end insert—
("(dd) Schedule ("Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and beg also leave to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 8, line 19, leave out ("paragraph 8") and insert ("paragraphs 8 and 10")
Page 8, line 20, leave out ("that paragraph") and insert ("those paragraphs").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like also to move Amendment No. 20. These are technical amendments to ensure that the Treasury will have available, immediately on Royal Assent, their powers to issue fresh guarantees to any borrowings of the National Water Council which are transferred to one or more of the water authorities. The borrowings in question are all from the European Investment Bank and were borrowed by the National Water Council to be on-loaned to the water authorities. Negotiations are in process to transfer these borrowings to the relevant water authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to dissolution of National Water Council and Water Space Amenity Commission.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 38, leave out second ("and") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to correct a small error in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 41, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a technical amendment to ensure that the correct sub-paragraph is referred to in line 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 42, after ("employment") insert ("or an agreement under section 26(2) of the principal Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not a technical amendment but is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State does not, as a result of paragraph 4, become a party to negotiating agreements and the line under Section 26(2) of the Water Act 1973. As your Lordships may recall, when the national Water Council's functions cease, the agreements to establish negotiating machinery under Section 26(2) will cease and so will the negotiating machinery established under those agreements. It is for the water authorities and the employees to establish fresh arrangements. This amendment is needed to put beyond all doubt that the agreements I have referred to are not ones where the Bill substitutes the Secretary of State for the National Water Council. To that extent it is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 14, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 6 is unnecessary. Your Lordships will notice that in the similar paragraph, paragraph 8, dealing with compensation there is no equivalent of sub-paragraph (5). The sub-paragraph was intended to empower the pension authority—which I understand
172
will be the Severn-Trent Water Authority—to arrange for its functions to be discharged in whatever way was most convenient to it—for example, by a committee. However, I am advised that water authorities already possess this power, and to refer to it explicitly is therefore otiose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to,
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 26:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE
ARRANGEMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS
The following is the Schedule inserted in the principal Act by section 6(2) of this Act—

SCHEDULE 4A
ARRANGEMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS
1. In this Schedule "arrangements" means arrangements (whenever made) under section 15 of this Act.
General
2. Arrangements entered into by a water authority shall be made with a view to ensuring that their sewerage functions, taken as a whole, are carried out efficiently.
3.—(1) All arrangements shall comply with the requirements of such regulations as may be made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
(2) Any such regulations may, in particular, include requirements as to the obligations to be imposed by any arrangements on the parties to those arrangements.
(3) Regulations under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Where arrangements are in force at the time when the first regulations made under this paragraph come into force, the parties to those arrangements shall, within such period as may be specified by the Secretary of State, make such alterations in the arrangements as are necessary to ensure that they comply with the regulations; and where, on the expiry of that period, any arrangements fail to comply with the regulations those arrangements shall have effect subject to such alterations as the Secretary of State may direct.
Cases where duty to make arrangements does not apply
4.—(1) The duty imposed by section 15(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to any sewerage functions where—

(a) the water authority and relevant authority concerned agree that it would be inexpedient for arrangements to be made in respect of those functions;

(b) arrangements in respect of those functions have been brought to an end within the previous five years and either the water authority or relevant authority concerned are of the opinion that it would be inexpedient for arrangements to be so made; or

(c) any relevant authority requesting the making of arrangements have had a similar request refused by the water authority concerned within that period and the water authority are of that opinion.

(2) A water authority may refuse to enter into arrangements with a relevant authority where they are of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to do so, but where a water authority so refuse, in a case which does not fall within sub-paragraph (1) above, the relevant authority may apply to the Secretary of State for the decision to be reviewed.
(3) On any such review the Secretary of State may confirm the water authority's decision or give a direction requiring them to enter into arrangements with the relevant authority; and any such direction may specify the provision to be made by the arrangements (either in substitution for or in addition to any provision required by regulations under paragraph 3 above).
Variation and termination of arrangements
5.—(1) Any arrangements may—

(a) be varied or brought to an end by agreement between the parties;

(b) be brought to an end by the relevant authority giving reasonable notice to the water authority; and

173

(c) subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, be varied or brought to an end by the water authority giving reasonable notice to the relevant authority.

(2) Where a notice has been served under sub-paragraph (1)(c) above, the Secretary of State may, on an application made to him by the relevant authority before the expiry of the notice, review the proposed variation or ending of the arrangements; and on any such review the Secretary of State may confirm the proposals or give a direction—

(a) requiring the arrangements to be brought to an end, or varied, in accordance with the terms of the direction; or

(b) requiring the notice to be withdrawn.

(3) The matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard in conducting a review under paragraph 4(2) or sub-paragraph (2) above, include the likely financial consequences for the parties of the proposed action.
(4) Where a review is conducted under sub-paragraph (2) above the notice in question shall not take effect except in accordance with a confirmation or direction under that sub-paragraph.
Local authority committees etc.
6.—(1) Where by virtue of any arrangements functions of a water authority are to be discharged by a local authority, then, subject to the provision made by the arrangements, the local authority may arrange for the discharge of those functions by a committee, sub-committee or officer of theirs.
(2) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above any such functions may be discharged by a committee of a local authority, then unless the water authority or local authority otherwise direct, the committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by a sub-committee or an officer of the local authority.
(3) Where by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above any such functions may be discharged by a sub-committee of a local authority, then, unless the water authority, the local authority or the committee otherwise direct, the sub-committee may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions by an officer of the local authority.
(4) Any arrangements made by a local authority or committee under this paragraph for the discharge of any functions by a committee, sub-committee or officer shall not prevent the authority or committee by whom those arrangements are made from discharging those functions.
Transfer of officers
7. Where arrangements are made, varied or brought to an end, provision may be made by the parties to the arrangements for the transfer of any officers of either party to the other.
Compensation
8.—(1) Where an authority who are party to any arrangements have compensated any officer of theirs who has suffered loss as a result of the making, variation or ending of those arrangements, the authority who are the other party to those arrangements may make such payment to the compensating authority, by way of total or partial reimbursement, as they consider appropriate.
(2) The application by section 34 of this Act, of section 259 of the Local Government Act 1972 (compensation for loss of office), and accordingly the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations 1974, shall cease to have effect in relation to any loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments resulting, after the passing of this Act, from the making, varying or ending of any arrangements.
Interpretation
9. In this Schedule, and in section 15 of this Act—
"council" means the council of a district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;
"relevant authority" means a council or—

(a) in relation to a new town as respects which an order is in force under section 34 of the New Towns Act 1981 (provision of sewers and sewage disposal works by development corporation), the development corporation or any council within whose area the town is wholly or partly situated;

(b) in relation to a new town as respects which an order is in force under paragraph 51 of Schedule 3 to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 (provision of sewers and sewage disposal works by Development Board for Rural Wales), the Board or any council within whose area the town is wholly or partly situated;

174

(c) in relation to an area designated as an urban development area under Part XVI of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the urban development corporation or any council within whose area the urban development area is wholly or partly situated; and

"sewerage functions" means, in relation to a water authority, the functions of the authority under Part II of the Public Health Act 1936, other than those relating to sewage disposal.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26, which was discussed with my noble friend's Amendment No. 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 18, line 18, leave out paragraph 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 31 in the Long Title. Both these amendments are necessary to remove references to the local ombudsman provisions in the Local Government Act 1974 which are not now being affected by the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 20, line 38, at end insert—

("1976 c. 75.

The Development of Rural Wales Act 1976.

In Schedule 7, paragraph 11.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, my noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 20, line 44, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 158, subsections (1) and (2).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 11, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 20, line 46, at end insert—

("1981 c. 64.

The New Towns Act 1981.

In Schedule 12, paragraph 12.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 11, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 31:
Line 8, leave out ("to amend Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Hire-Purchase (Increase of Limit of Value) (Great Britain) Order 1983
7.50 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple order which introduces no new provision. Its purpose is to raise the financial limits in the Hire-Purchase Acts to take account of that with which we are all acquainted—inflation. If approved, the order will raise the upper limit in the Acts—that is, the level at which the protection afforded by the Acts ceases to apply—from £5,000 to £7,500. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, who made no comment.
When the Hire-Purchase Acts received Royal Assent in the mid-sixties, the upper limit was £2,000. At that time £2,000 was sufficient to cover most of the goods that private consumers were likely to buy and all but the most expensive cars. By 1978, as a result of inflation, that was no longer the case and the limit was raised to £5,000. Now, despite the fall in the rate of inflation over the past two years, £5,000 is too low. The hire purchase price of many typical family cars is likely to be above the limit, and the consumer is deprived of the protection which the Hire-Purchase Acts were designed to give him. The figure of £7,500 is high enough to bring the hire-purchase price of most small and medium-sized family cars back within the scope of the Acts, but it is not so high as to impose an intolerable burden on the finance industry.
I should stress that the order is an interim measure. My honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs hopes shortly to make regulations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 governing, among other things, the form and context of credit agreements, cancellation rights and rebates on early settlement. These regulations, and the related provisions of the Act, will come into force some 18 months later. Thereafter, consumers will enjoy comprehensive protection under the Consumer Credit Act in relation to all forms of credit agreement, and the Hire-Purchase Acts will be repealed.
At the same time as the regulations are laid, my honourable friend will lay draft orders to increase the monetary limit on credit agreements protected by the Consumer Credit Act to £15,000. That figure will take effect immediately after the regulations and related provisions come into force. The present order is therefore a stepping stone to increase the protection provided by the Hire-Purchase Acts until the much wider protection offered by the Consumer Credit Act comes into force. I hope your Lordships will consider that a reasonable explanation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order. In referring to the increased amount (from £5,000 to £7,500), which would be protected under the Acts, the noble Lord said that that was designed to take account of inflation. I was surprised that he did not mention that since the previous limit was fixed, the minimum
176
hire-purchase deposit amount had been abolished. It could be, therefore, that people were tending, when buying family motor cars, to borrow a larger amount than they would previously have borrowed. In the circumstances, I wondered whether the Minister was convinced that the proposed increase would be sufficiently large, bearing in mind that, regrettably perhaps, a normal family car can cost more than £7,500.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his welcome to this simple order. He raised an interesting and valid point in terms of the removal of controls, possibly tempting the innocent consumer pell-mell into the high streets to spend what he otherwise would not spend. I hope that is not entirely the case. He wondered whether the upper limit we have suggested of £7,500 would be sufficient. I stressed that it was an interim arrangement and that when the Hire-Purchase Acts were finally repealed, the top figure of £15,000—which we hope will be approved in due course under the Consumer Credit Act, which will be an envelope measure covering all forms of consumer credit—would apply.
I understand that family motor cars of the types that are likely to be bought by the consumer on hire purchase depend very much on the terms the consumer can negotiate with the dealer, on the type of motor car the consumer prefers and the finance company. That is a feature of the competitive markets for both finance and motor cars existing in the United Kingdom today.
I will try to make a rough generalisation on the prices of family motor vehicles. We expect the increase now being proposed to cover most cars with a cash price of from just under £4,500 to just over £6,000. I am advised that those parameters would range from some of the dearer (more heavily decorated, if I may so describe them; more powerful and sporty) models of the admirable Metro up to the slightly larger Ford Escorts and Vauxhall Astras; and, I am given to understand, most versions of the new British Leyland Maestro up to the middle of the range versions of the Ford Sierra and Vauxhall Cavalier.
I regret that I do not have the price lists with me so that I might detail to the noble Lord what options he could have on his motor car—sliding roof, reclining seats and so on—but we suggest that £7,500 will relieve some of the problems which have caused aggravation to consumers who wish to purchase the normal family motor car. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is an interim figure and that before long the limit under the Consumer Credit Act will, we hope, be twice what is proposed this evening. With that little journey through the interesting market in the United Kingdom for motor cars, I hope the House will approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.