Lords Sitting of 8 March 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 Oxford.

Iran: Persecution of Baha'is
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have recently made representations, either on their own account or in concert with other Governments, to the Government of Iran concerning the continued persecution of Baha'is.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on 27th December 1982, the Danish Ambassador in Tehran, acting on behalf of the Ten, made a démarche to the Iranian Foreign Ministry to draw their attention to the level of international concern at reports of persecution of the Baha'is. Following reports that sentences of death on 22 members of the Baha'i community in Shiraz had been confirmed, the Ten decided to make a further approach to the Iranian authorities to express their deep concern.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, while I express thanks to the noble Lord for that reply, can he tell the House whether the Shiraz 22 are still alive, and, if they are, does not this show some effect of protest from the West? Is the noble Lord aware that under the Iranian constitution Article 13 treats the Baha'is as non-people and allows only Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to be recognised as religious minorities? Will he press the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make representations that this article of the constitution be altered to recognise the existence of this legitimate independent religion?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge the Shiraz 22 to whom the noble Lord has just referred are still alive. With regard to the Baha'is not being recognised as a religious grouping in Iran, of course the Government are well aware of this. I would like to refer the noble Lord to the speech that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross made the other day during the human rights debate of the United Nations, in which he pressed the very points to which the noble Lord has alluded.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the point of the United Nations, is it not the case that the Iranian Government has now agreed to accept an envoy from the United Nations to investigate these alleged appalling violations of human rights? Can the noble Lord confirm that, and also confirm that the Government would support such a move?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was not aware of that fact, but if it is so, most certainly the Government would support just such a move. I should point out that Iran has subscribed to United Nations Covenants on Human Rights, and I would say that it is only reasonable for the world community to encourage countries to observe the undertakings which they sign.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that no Iranian Baha'i shall be repatriated against his or her will from this country to Iran?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, an Iranian who is a member of the Baha'i faith would qualify for recognition as a refugee in this country and would therefore be protected from return to Iran. So the answer to the noble Lord's question is, yes.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is not Iran plainly in breach of those conventions which the noble Lord has said its Government ratified in 1976? Has any complaint been made to the United Nations Commission of Human Rights, which has some sort of supervision over breaches of this kind? If that has not been done, can Her Majesty's Government take some initiative in that regard?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. The speech of my noble friend Lord Colville to which I referred earlier included these points. It is exactly for the reason that the noble and learned Lord has adduced that this international pressure is being put on the Iranian Government at the moment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that our own country has an impeccable record of religious tolerance, and should not that strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in these matters?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, absolutely, but in this respect we are acting, as I said in my original Answer, through the good offices of the Ten.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, are the Government equally concerned about persecution by the Iranians of the Kurdish people and other minorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, human rights are human rights, wherever they occur.

Overseas Aid: Statistics
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what expenditure is proposed for overseas aid in 1983–84, what percentage this represents of Britain's gross national product and how these figures compare with those of 1978–79.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the net aid programme for 1983–84, as published in the recent White Paper on the Government's expenditure plans (Cmnd. 8789), is £1,057 million. The percentage this represents of Britain's 1983–84 GNP will depend on the performance of the economy for that year. For 1978–79 net aid was £723 million, representing 0.42 per cent. of GNP.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that on 30th November last, when I asked a similar Question, I was also then given what are now called the cash figures as distinct from the cost figures? Is he aware that he has again, in his comparison between last year and 1978–79, given the cash figures, not the cost figures? Is it not a fact that the cost figures bear out the assertion that I made on 30th November, that this Government have reduced overseas aid by something in the region of 15 per cent?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is, yes, I have, so far as the figures are concerned, given cash and not cost. As regards the noble Lord's second question, if one takes an index setting out the real value of our aid as compared with 1981–82, the figure which the noble Lord has given to the House is not far out, although I do not have the exact figure. But the fact of the matter is that aid has been reduced in real terms between 1978–79 and the current year because it could not be immune from the necessity to make public expenditure cuts.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how much of this amount is in food aid? Can he give the Government's view on the expert opinion which is beginning to be widely held that in many cases food aid has been harmful in destroying local agriculture and, indeed, local culture?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not have the figure for food aid but I will certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The Government would not go that far down the road which the noble Lord presents, but I think we would be very hesitant in feeling that the distribution of food aid is an answer compared with the improvement of the agricultural structure of countries. To that extent the Government would certainly agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether his figures include the amount of aid, both financial and in food, that is given by voluntary organisations from this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am giving the figures from the public expenditure White Paper. I am sorry that I must again admit to my noble friend that I am not sure whether they include the figure for voluntary organisations—a figure which, incidentally, I remember my noble friend Lady Trumpington pointing out to the House a few weeks ago as one of which we should be proud. I am sorry, therefore, that I do not have the exact figure with me.
Lord Oram: My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for having set out in a Written Answer a few
82
weeks ago, at my request, the aid totals over a period of 10 years? May I ask whether he himself had a chance to study those figures? If so, did he notice that in every year when Labour were in office there was an increase over the previous year and in every year when a Conservative Government were in office there was a decrease over the previous year?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord may feel that that represents the case, but, as I have pointed out on more than one occasion to your Lordships' House, when we get into the next financial year, in less than a month's time, the expenditure on the aid programme will increase, both in cost terms and in cash terms.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions? First, how far is capital investment included in the figures for aid? Secondly, while aid is deeply necessary for the poorest countries, are the Government giving their mind to proposals for a new world economic order as indicated yesterday in the splendid speech by Mrs. Indira Gandhi to the nonaligned nations?
Lord Belstead: Yes, my Lords; capital investment, so far as it attracts aid, is included in the figures that I have given. I am not aware that we are thinking of a new economic order.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I normally ask questions in order to obtain information from the Government. Perhaps I should reverse the roles and ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the answer to the question of the noble Baroness sitting behind him is that the voluntary organisations provide about £50 million a year for overseas territories but that that is not included in the figures that I have asked for this afternoon, because I asked for the official figures.
May I probe the Minister one stage further on the first answer that he gave me, when he repeated the suggestion that aid had to be cut because of the cuts in public expenditure—due, presumably, to the depression? I have asked this question of him before. At the end of the period of office of the Labour Government in 1979 the Minister was able to say that overseas aid from this country produced 40,000 jobs inside Britain. If the Ministry was able give those figures in 1979, is it now possible for the Overseas Development Administration to give similar figures? Have they been cut by the 15 per cent. which the noble Lord admits has been the cut in overseas aid?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have replied to that question on previous occasions in the House; that is, that I am not aware that what the noble Lord asserts in asking that question represents the truth. What I mean by that is that I do not think either the noble Lord or I can be certain of the fact of the matter as the noble Lord puts it to the House. However, I would add that the importance which the Government attach to the giving of overseas aid is reflected by the fact that only the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Japan are bigger OECD aid givers than the United Kingdom. If I may go back to the noble Lord's original Question, our aid as a percentage of our gross national product is above the level of the OECD countries.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that that percentage is lower than the percentage in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark?

NHS: Scope of Inquiry
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the scope of the work to be carried out by the management inquiry team examining the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the management inquiry team will advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on further action that needs to be taken, within existing funding, to secure the most effective use and management of NHS manpower and related resources. The inquiry will not cover doctors and dentists and it will not deal with clinical matters as such.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in acknowledging that very interesting reply, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the aim of the inquiry will be to get better value for money combined with better patient care, particularly since I understand that in the year 1983–84 the National Health Service will cost the record figure of £15frac12; billion?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that the sum of money anticipated is of the order of the figure that she mentioned. Certainly it is one of the purposes of the inquiry to ensure that we get the very best value for money. There are others, too, such as the ones that I described in the Answer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared also to recommend to the Secretary of State that he should point out to the inquiring body that the fundamental feature ought to be that all doctors, nurses, specialists of all kinds and ancillary and ambulance staffs, should be provided with conditions of work that will create a great harmony which will be of benefit and increase the efficiency of our National Health Service to our fellow countrymen?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody underestimates the importance of the point that the noble Lord makes, but of course there is other machinery for determining the conditions of work. For example, there is the review board for doctors and dentists and the Whitley Council machinery for the other workers in the Health Service. I do not think that it would be right to expand the inquiry that I have referred to in that way.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that, despite all the criticism of the National
84
Health Service, most people who use it—I am one of those who has used it recently—do not find as much to blame as comes out in this Chamber? It is a real boon to most people. It is a great pity that we are always running it down in this Chamber.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Baroness is quite right to put her question in that way, if I may say so. It is very easy to criticise the National Health Service, but we hear compliments less often.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the management team is to visit every region and every district, and how long that will take?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of how the team seizes itself of the problems that it is to consider is a matter for the inquiry team itself. I cannot say whether it will be visiting all the regions or indeed any, although doubtless it will be visiting some. As for the time-scale, we hope to get a preliminary assessment of the way things are going towards the end of June and I cannot say quite how long it will take after that, if at all.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the management inquiry team will be able to examine the Elephant and Castle district and the Department of Health and Social Security centrally in addition to the hospitals and the health service in the regions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly see no reason why not.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether or not the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland are to establish a team for their respective countries parallel to this management inquiry team?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. This inquiry will particularly address itself to the problems of England but the conclusions which it reaches will of course be made available by my right honourable friend to his colleagues responsible for the other regions.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, can my noble friend—
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that reformation and examination of the Whitley Councils—their scope broadened—must be part of the examining inquiry's writ?
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this inquiry will study very closely the enormous increase in the administrative staff, because we hear so many speeches about how much better it was in the past than now, which I for one do not accept? But, nevertheless, there has been a monumental increase in administration and what we are really interested in is seeing that the people who

85
deal with the patients are there. Many of us think that the administration has become overburdened and I hope that this inquiry will deal with that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to tell my noble friend that she really is not correct in her assertion that there has been a massive increase in administrative staff within the National Health Service. On the contrary, there has been a reduction in grades in the particular area in recent times. But my noble friend might care to ponder on this particular point: is it really right, for example, that an experienced and highly trained specialist should spend his time typing his own letters when it might be better if someone was employed for the purpose?
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I should like to ask him three questions? What will be the relationship between this team and the management efficiency groups which have been set up in England? Secondly, what use will be made by the Government of the findings and conclusions of the team, and in particular is it intended that they should link in with programmes or measures for the privatisation of the National Health Service? Finally, what is the cost involved and will that fall on NHS budgets? Finally, is the Minister aware—
Several noble Lords: Fourth question!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: That is right, my Lords, four. Finally, is the Minister aware that it is about time that the Government ceased messing about with the National Health Service and let the dedicated people in the service get on with the job?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, may I in answer to the last point suggest that the noble Lord consults the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who I think took a slightly different view on that matter than the noble Lord now advances. My Lords, the inquiry will of course be separate to the other matters that the noble Lord referred to. The purpose of the inquiry will be to enable my right honourable friend to implement the recommendations that it makes to improve the management, efficiency and, above all, the value for money that we get out of the health service. The inquiry has no relation whatever with any privatisation proposals, as the noble Lord said. As for cost, the four members of the inquiry are giving their services free of charge.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the inquiry be concerned with the rather disquieting information which has come to light about the care and treatment of the mentally handicapped in some of the National Health Service hospitals?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the inquiry will not be specifically concerned with the matter to which my noble friend refers because, as I said, it is concerned with the management of the Health Service and the value for money considerations to which I referred earlier. But of course it will not be debarred from considering those particular problems with the sector to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during all these supplementary questions and all this simple analysis that we have heard one vital social factor has not been taken into account: namely, that whatever this may cost, it must be balanced against the saving of life and limb and economic productivity by keeping people healthy and well? That side of the balance sheet should be put against any expenditures.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, naturally I agree that the primary purpose of the National Health Service is to provide the care that sick people need. The purpose of this inquiry is to assist us in doing that better.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the inquiry look at the development of computing within the National Health Service?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it will certainly not be disbarred from looking at that matter if it wishes to do so.
Lord Davies of Penrhys: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have been nearly nine minutes on this Question. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Penrhys, has been trying to speak. Perhaps we might take his question and then move on to the next one.
Lord Davies of Penrhys: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that there is a problem here? Next Sunday I shall be going into a national health hospital for the removal of cataracts, but I have been able to do so only because I am connected with a brewery which will pay. Unless that were so, it would be impossible for me to be admitted. I was told by the specialist—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Davies of Penrhys: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was told by the specialist that that was the only way in which I could have them dealt with quickly? Is it not wrong that someone who has been against this system for so long should have to resort to this type of thing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is unhappily the case that the waiting lists for non-emergency treatment—which I gather is the cause of the difficulty with which the noble Lord is faced—are longer than we would wish. Up to the beginning of the dispute last year we had succeeded in significantly reducing those waiting lists, but naturally as a result of the dispute they again lengthened. I hope that one of the results of this inquiry will be that improved management efficiency in the health service will emerge, which will again assist us in reducing the lengths of the waiting lists.

Truancy: Local Authority Records
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which local education authorities had the worst records as far as truancy is concerned in the last period for which figures are available.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the Department of Education and Science has no recent information regarding levels of truancy. The primary responsibility for monitoring school attendance and for tackling problems of truancy lies with individual local education authorities.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that in the parents' magazine Where? it is reported that just under 5,000 children are in care because they have been truanting and that many of them are in community homes where the available standard of education is said to be not very high? Would my noble friend agree with me that if children are not in school it is very likely that they will become juvenile delinquents?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I really cannot comment on the figures in the magazine, Where? and nor would I comment on what type of education is being provided in community homes, but presumably if children are in community homes they are at least being educated. The link between truancy and juvenile delinquency is a very complex and difficult one. It is primarily a local matter, and there are no national figures. However, I understand that in one urban area, Leeds, where there is a most interesting project taking place with the juvenile courts, the records of some 450 youngsters appearing before the juvenile courts as young offenders indicate that about three out of four had attendances of at least 70 per cent. and about one in 10 had attendances of at least 90 per cent. I should like to add that in this case the figures did not distinguish between those absences which were justified and those which were not. I know that those are figures for Leeds only, and I do not know whether they are repeated throughout the country. However, they go to show that this is a very complex problem and that there is not naturally any type of link between truancy and juvenile delinquency.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the education system itself is at fault regarding truancy? When I say "at fault", I am referring to the problem of non-academic pupils perhaps attending education establishments which are geared completely to academic students. The figures I have from one local authority in the country prove quite conclusively that its truancy figures are some of the lowest in the whole of the area, and that is an area of high unemployment and one that is geared to perhaps a much more vocational type of training for the non-academic pupil.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that matter to your Lordships' attention. There is little general agreement as to any overriding reason for truancy. Research evidence suggests that such factors as social
88
background, disillusionment with the school curriculum, temperamental qualities and lack of interest and support by parents all contribute. A particular cause of concern is the fact that a significant number of parents seem to condone unjustified absence. The point which the noble Baroness has made about the vocational education of children is something that the Government are pursuing very much at the moment.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is a comforting thought that the figure of 5,000 which the noble Baroness quoted represents one-sixteenth of 1 per cent.?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, for producing a figure like that from thin air. Again, I would not know whether he was right, but it sounds jolly good.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that perhaps the figures for truancy among teachers are just as revealing about the conditions in the schools concerned as are the figures for truancy among pupils?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am afraid I have no figures for absences—I prefer that word to "truancies"—of teachers.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour. During this adjournment the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill will be taken.
British Fishing Boats Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Mental Health Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the said Bill. In doing so I must apologise for having a Committee stage on a consolidation Bill. However, a certain number of drafting errors have emerged and they will be put right in the Committee stage if your Lordships will pass this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Re-commitment)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Re-commitment) accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Discharge of patients]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 22, line 13, leave out ("Area Health Authority").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6. The object of these amendments is to remove redundant references to area health authorities from the Bill. Prior to 1st April 1982 the National Health Service had a three-tier structure of regional health authorities, area health authorities and health districts. On that date area health authorities were abolished and their local management functions were devolved to district health authorities. References to area health authorities or their functions in the Bill as drafted are therefore redundant, although this was overlooked at the earlier stage. The unnecessary references are removed by Amendments Nos. 1 to 6. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Bearing in mind the quantity and speed of consolidation, it is not surprising, and it is forgivable, that there should be an occasional error.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Visiting and examination of patients]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 22, line 34, leave out ("Area Health Authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Regulations for purposes of Part II]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 30, line 18, leave out ("Area Health Authorities").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Notification of hospitals having arrangements for reception of urgent cases]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 107, line 6, leave out ("every Area and")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No, 5:
Page 107, line 8, leave out ("area")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 141 to 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 110, line 7, leave out ("Area Health Authority")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 127, line 17, leave out ("143") and insert ("126")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment merely rectifies a drafting error,and the correct clause is Clause 126 and not Clause 143. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Matrimonial Homes Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Water Bill
3.14 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of National Water Council and Water Space Amenity Commission]:
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 26, at beginning insert ("Except as provided by section (Pension schemes) below").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. With permission, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 51 in the Long Title. My amendments are designed to ensure that the new

91
structure for managing the pension fund is constituted on a national basis which is satisfactory to all 10 regional water authorities and to their employees, and to ensure that this large fund—the fund is worth about £800 million—continues to be satisfactorily managed with regard to investment and continues to be sound and satisfactory. I should mention that this not inconsiderable item has so far received no mention at all in the proceedings in the Commons, nor in the Government's original consultation paper. Therefore, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it deserves at least to be mentioned here to ensure that this pension fund has a satisfactory future.
I shall be able to be very brief because in the interval I have spoken with my noble friend and heard that Ministers are now aware that the management of this fund requires catering for as well as the administrative machinery for the payment of pensions. I have heard that they have an arrangement in mind which, by a somewhat circuitous route, will achieve roughly what I have proposed in my Amendment No. 14, which would be a board of trustees set up by the Secretary of State and representatives of both the employers and the employees in the regional authorities. So I move my amendment and speak to the other two to give my noble friend the opportunity to inform the Committee of this new arrangement, which I gather will achieve the end which I require. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend Lord Nugent spoke also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 51. With permission, I should like to do the same. As the first chairman of the National Water Council, there is no one in this Committee who speaks more knowledgeably than my noble friend on matters relating to the water industry pension fund, which is at present a responsibility of the council.
There are two main points I would like to make in response to what my noble friend has said. The first is that the water industry pension fund is one of the funds established under local government superannuation regulations made under the Superannuation Act 1972. It is, in effect, a branch of the local government scheme. The regulations control in some detail the contributions which must be paid by members of the scheme and by the employers, and the benefits which in their turn are payable. However, I must remind him that no scheme has ever been established under Section 27 of the Water Act 1973, although that section does indeed empower the water authorities to establish and administer pension schemes and funds.
The second point I should like to make is to confirm that this very large pension fund, standing at present at over £800 million, is a vital matter for over 60,000 employees in the water industry and many thousands of pensioners. Proper arrangements must be made for the management of the fund and, as my noble friend has mentioned, for the collection of contributions and the payment of benefits once the National Water Council ceases to exist.
The Government have, of course, had this very much in mind from the moment the decision was taken to abolish the council. In the consultation paper that we published on 7th July last we suggested that the appropriate arrangement would be to continue with the fund which was part of the local government
92
scheme. We suggested the designation of one of the water authorities to administer the fund on behalf of the whole industry.
The chairmen of the water authorities have considered this suggestion and I am pleased to inform the Committee that they are agreed that one of the water authorities will be asked to take on the role of administering body. Fresh regulations will be made under the 1972 Act transferring the existing fund to the designated authority, together with all the responsibilities for administering the scheme.
It may be asked why it is necessary to choose a water authority. The answer quite simply is that the chosen body must be a statutory body—that is, one which cannot go out of existence without legislation. In view of the massive responsibilities attaching to this position, I am sure your Lordships would agree that that is a prudent course. It is, of course, well precedented that one body should act on behalf of others in this way (for example, a county council is normally responsible for the superannuation not only of its own employees but also of those of the district councils within its area).
The chairmen are, however, concerned to ensure that there is proper involvement of all the water authorities in the administration of this fund and of the scheme. I understand that arrangements will be made with the designated water authority to ensure that a committee representing all the authorities—perhaps the water authorities' association or a committee of it—will have delegated to it the main pension functions. The ultimate responsibility will rest with the designated water authority, just as at present it rests with the council. But the other water authorities will all be closely involved, as I have indicated.
In the longer term, we understand that the water industry is likely to move towards an independent scheme, established under Section 27 of the 1973 Act. If they do so, paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides that they must first obtain the consent in writing of the Secretary of State. I should like to offer the Committee the assurance that, before granting such consent, the Secretary of State would need to be assured that proper arrangements had been made for protecting the interests of all concerned—and that, as he has explained, is the purpose of my noble friend's amendment. I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that the Government are proceeding along the right lines in this matter, and will not have to pursue this particular set of amendments.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank my noble friend for his answer. I recognise that the somewhat complicated machinery that my noble friend has contemplated and described to us will indeed provide what is required. It has to be done in this curious way because the noble Lord is abolishing the National Water Council, and therefore he has to find some other statutory body to take its place. It does do it. It brings in all the other water authorities. It will bring in the trade unions as well, and therefore it will provide a similar structure to what we have now. For myself, I am perfectly satisfied. Does the noble Baroness wish to speak?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I was supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I should like to clarify one of the things which the noble Minister said in reply to the amendment. Is it the Yorkshire or the South Yorkshire Water Authority—I have forgottin which—that may be the authority that takes over the trusteeship of the fund? I thought when the noble Lord replied that he said that the representatives on the new body which will be looking after the pension fund would be representatives from other water authorities, so they would be members of a water authority.
If that is the case, how will employee representation be safeguarded as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, wanted in his amendment? I understand that there are four employee representatives on the body as it is now established under the National Water Council. I know that the noble Lord had three in his amendment. However, I think it is on the record that, after the eight and a half years which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, took us back when he was the first chairman, there is a skill and expertise that has been set up with that organisation, and there has been nothing untoward with the employee representation on that body.
I should like to clarify the position. Is it what the Minister has said? Will the representatives be only from water authorities? As there was no specific number that the Minister would accept as employee representatives when I moved the amendment on the first day of Committee, will he tell me whether that point will be covered?
Lord Skelmersdale: When I replied to the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Nugent I was careful not to say which particular water authority would carry out the functions, because that is still a matter for discussion. The noble Baroness is quite right when she says that the Yorkshire Water Authority would be appropriate, but that has not been decided. The reason that it is appropriate is that most of the pension staff are employed in Sheffield, which is within the area of the Yorkshire Water Authority.
So far as representatives of the employees being on the pension administering body, whoever that may finally end up to be, there is, as I understand it, absolutely no reason why they should not be involved in whatever the new arrangement is in exactly the same way as they are now. There are two sides to a pension fund. One is the administration, or trusteeship, if you like, of the capital sum. The other is the actual paying out and receiving of personal contributions at, as it were, the other end. One of the things that my noble friend Lord Nugent was particularly worried about was the trustee arrangement which, as I say, will be done collectively by all the national water authority chairmen.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
3.27 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Water Industry Arbitration Board.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Water Industry Arbitration Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board").
(2) Any dispute concerning any matter relating to the remuneration or other terms or conditions of employment of persons employed by the Water Authorities shall be referred to the Board.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Board—

(a) to consider representations from the parties to any dispute referred to them under subsection (2) above;

(b) to consult with any individual or organisation appearing to them to be appropriate; and

(c) to adjudicate on the dispute.

(4) Any adjudication by the Board under subsection (3) above shall form part of the contract of employment of employees of the Water Authorities and be enforceable accordingly.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, and I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to debate Amendments Nos. 16 and 50 at the same time. In my Second Reading speech I indicated that the experience of the water strike showed that the present industrial relations structure was not satisfactory. Clause 3, by abolishing the National Water Council, also abolishes the existing NJIC and NJC structures and the agreements. Therefore, a new structure has to be created in its place. I am informed that current thinking by the DoE and the RWAs is a new structure of NJIC and NJC and agreements similar to the existing National Water Council structure, with the Association of Regional Water Authorities replacing the National Water Council.
In my opinion, this would not be adequate. The strike was an experience which has left a lasting mark. It lasted nearly five weeks. Over 90,000 households, some quarter of a million people, were during that period cut off from a piped water supply. That means that they had to get all their water supplies from a local standpipe, and that in the house where they lived there was no water-operated appliance working. This, in mid-winter, is a considerable hardship. You can imagine—I am sure some of your Lordships will have visited streets where the water supply had been cut off—just what it means.
Take a young household where the only hot water is the kettle which the housewife boils, and getting the children ready to go to school. What absolute hell it must have been for her struggling with all those problems without a normal hot water supply or, for that matter, a normal cold water supply except for what came out of a bucket which her husband had probably fetched the night before. No washing machines working. All the water appliances that most of us live by nowadays cut off. For old people probably depending on a hot water radiator system to heat the house, there would be a stone cold house and no hot baths. That is hardship. I reckon that a plentiful supply of pure water piped to the house is one of the basic necessities of life, and to have it cut off is barbarous and not acceptable in a civilised country. To make the domestic household the battleground for an industrial dispute is something we should obviate completely for ever.
That is my justification for seeking more robust machinery for settling disputes in the water industry. The existing machinery is set out in the Green Book, which some of your Lordships may have, which is the manual of the water industry which I negotiated when the new water industry came into being in 1973–74. It provides an arbitration clause, in Clause 12 of the agreement, but this arbitration system works only if both sides are willing to work it. I would add—because it is a major factor—that there is no sanction if there is a breach of the clause.
Amendment No. 16 virtually reproduces the clause in the existing agreement to which I referred. It is effective, because it was negotiated and agreed between employers and employees 10 years ago. It looked as if it would work all right, but in the recent dispute it simply did not protect people from the hardships I have indicated because it fails when either side is not willing either to go to arbitration or to accept an award when an award is made, as happened in this case. The first arbitration, the Buchanan arbitration, made an award but the trade union leaders announced they could not accept it, and went into strike action.
My amendment does not pretend to be perfection in drafting or in a legal fashion, but it is a peg on which to hang this debate, which I suggest is a proper debate for Parliament to have, giving us a chance to consider whether we can find a better way of settling a dispute in this vital field. My concept is a statutory arbitration board with a specific duty to adjudicate on disputes in the water industry. My thought is that the chairman might be someone above the political battle, such as a High Court judge or Law Lord, assisted by two other members experienced in industrial relations, one from the employers' side and one from the employees. Their terms of reference would be broadly to examine the submissions of both sides in terms of the intrinsic needs of the industry and against the background of current conditions in the national economy.
The award of the tribunal would have force—as subsection (4) of my amendment says—as "part of the contract of employment", which means it would be legally enforceable. Support for that legal enforcement is to be found in the Employment Act 1982, where there are substantial penalties for a breach. The 1982 Act appears to my lay mind to indicate that it is the employer who would have the right of action, but I feel it would be desirable that the injured party should have the right of action; that is, the consumer, the housewife, who has been cut off. Therefore, I should like to see the law extended in that fashion so that those who had suffered could go to court and get their case heard and get the damages that were fitting. That is no more than common justice, in my opinion.
In case doubt be cast on the effectiveness of such a civil penalty, I recall the strength of discipline in the trade union movement in the winter of 1977–78, when we ran into certain difficulties, and I was in the chair of the Water Council. The union leaders had come to agreement with me on what the award should be, which was acceptable to the Government of the day, and some of the union members in the North-West had refused to accept it. But the union leaders, very courageously, visited those dissidents and had quite a
96
rough meeting. They stood up to them and they made it stick. I have no doubt, therefore, that if the union leaders want to make it stick, they will. And if there are substantial damages which they might run into in the event of a breach, I feel sure that the union leadership would be well able to make such a situation effective.
I should have mentioned that I am not suggesting that we should go back to the 1875 Act, a measure which I suppose one must consider in this context. The Committee may recall that that was repealed some 12 years ago. The effect of that Act was to make a strike in the water service a criminal offence, automatically and without reference to any tribunal, but I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee would agree that that would be too one-sided and therefore not acceptable.
I recognise, of course, that a statutory arbitration board carries major political implications. For' my noble friend and the Government, it means conceding an area of wage negotiations to be outside Government influence. Experience indicates the danger sometimes of inflationary awards, which are therefore objectionable and a major concession in regard to Government policy. I also recognise that noble Lords opposite, and trade union supporters generally, would have serious objection to any section of the trade union movement giving up the right to strike for this body of employees; it would be a major policy concession. However, it is relevant to observe that in this particular case the workforce did not gain very much by their strike. The difference between the Buchanan award, the first one, which they rejected, and the Johnston award, which they accepted, was only £3 a week, from £10 to £13, so it will obviously take two or three years for them to make up what they lost in wages during the weeks of the strike. Therefore, the amount at stake in this case was not large.
I have set out the case and the objections which are likely to come from both Front Benches. It may be they will both unite against me. On the other hand, it might be that some political sacrifice from each side is the path to consensus, and this is a field where we badly need consensus. It might, then, dispose both sides to recognise that our people deserve something better than their domestic lives being made the battle-ground for an industrial dispute. I therefore hope that my amendment will be considered to deserve further consideration.
Lord Irving of Dartford: I should first declare an interest, having an association with NALGO. I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 16 which, stripped of all legal verbiage, requires the authorities to seek consultation in respect of the establishment and maintenance for the settling by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment, with the provision for reference to arbitration in default. In other words, the amendment is designed to reinstate Section 26(2), (3) and (4) of the Water Act 1973, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, inferred. Like him, I too deplore the inconvenience which was caused to many people by the strike. The difference between the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and myself, is that I do not believe that his solution would provide a better state of affairs, and it might lead to a worsening of the conditions, not only in that industry, but in other industries, too.

97
It is very attractive indeed to believe that one can regulate everything, including industrial relations, by law. But the fact is that the law does not provide good industrial relations; they have to be worked for. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said that the structure, as he called it—the arrangements—had not worked. I do not think that NALGO would believe that, certainly not in regard to the white collar workers; they have worked very well.
During the strike to which the noble Lord referred, the newspapers spoke about the industry having a long history of industrial peace. The manual workers claimed that they refused to go to arbitration because the intervention of the Government and the Secretary of State had made impossible free negotiations, as provided in the Act. Noble Lords may argue as to whether or not there was an intervention, but the fact is that the unions believed passionately that that was so, and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, they would consider that they gained more from the action that they took, however deplored it might have been, than they would have secured through free negotiation. But it is not our purpose to argue that point this afternoon. The whole business was aggravated by the mistakes of the management, and their exaggerations and miscalculations, which I believe must have puzzled many private employers.
What the strike proved was that in a vital industry, such as the water industry, men or women cannot be coerced into falling in line if they have a strong sense of grievance; and that is true also of the legal sanction. The unhappy fact of the matter was that of themselves the Government were quite powerless to bring the strike to an end by sitting it out, as they did in the case of the National Health Service workers, or in any other way; and no compulsory arbitration board could change that fact. In the end there had to be a voluntary coming together. The tragedy was that it took so long.
Now the noble Lord wishes to abolish the arbitration procedure and introduce an arbitration board which, in a simple, easy, clean way, would virtually hand down decisions from above. Why should the workers in key industries accept, any more than they would accept it under the other arrangements, something that they find utterly unacceptable? The truth is that there are no substitutes for good will and good industrial relations, which, as many employers know only too well, have to be earned. It may be that in some industries Mr. Tebbit can use the law, or a large Conservative majority to get workers into line. But after the recession he will not be able to do without the willing co-operation of unions and workers, not just in the water industry, but in all industries, if we are to produce at the quality, the pace, and the price which will match those of our competitors.
It is also true that it is very difficult for trade unions not to be suspicious of a board of this kind, particularly following the Government's action in suspending the Civil Service Pay Unit and Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act 1975. If the decisions being handed down by the arbitration board are unacceptable, why should the Government not do exactly what they did in those two cases? As I have said, there are no substitutes for good industrial relations. They have to be earned through effective
98
consultation and negotiations, with arbitration as a fallback, and certainly with a strike as the weapon of last resort. I hope that the Minister will not take the retrograde step of leaving out of the Bill provision for proper procedures, including arbitration.
These amendments were moved during the Report stage in another place. The Minister, Mr. Shaw, stated that Ministers considered it "unnecessary" for there to be statutory requirements for the arrangements to be made for the negotiation and agreement on pay and other terms and conditions of service. As reported at column 263 of the Official Report, he added that it is up to—
"the chairmen of the regional water authorities, as now formed into the association, in negotiation … with the trade unions"
to
"determine what form of central or regional bargaining structure they wish to have".
As Mr. Howell pointed out, that leaves it up to any regional water authority, if it so wishes, to attempt to establish its own wage negotiating machinery outside the scope of any national agreement—a move which would be strongly opposed by the TUC-affiliated unions concerned with the water industry. The TUC supports national determination of pay and conditions of service in the water industry and deplores the Government's failure to make a clear statement on the need for some form of agreed national bargaining machinery. Not only NALGO, but also all other unions with members in the water industry, attach great importance to the maintenance of national joint negotiating machinery in the industry. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reject Amendments Nos. 15 and 50, and accept Amendment No. 16.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to say a few words in opposition, in particular to Amendment No. 15. But before doing so, like other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, to whom I of course defer. I am sure that all of your Lordships, on whatever side of the Committee you sit, are grateful to him for giving us the opportunity of a valuable peg on which to hang a constructive debate on a question which transcends the particular problems of the water industry—the subject matter of the Bill.
Before dealing with the reasons that I have in mind, so as not to exacerbate the situation, I should like to say, with respect, that I do not agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. It is true that there were mistakes of management—perhaps there always are—but there was an element of union policy dedicated to show a degree of muscle against the present administration which has manifested itself over the last two years. During the last two years there have, I think, been only two months when there has not been some dispute in the public sector, and that is why the public has been trapped, like a pawn, in the power struggle.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent that the present structure of the water industry is not satisfactory. I agree with the noble Lord that something must be done to seek to avoid stoppages not only in this essential service, but, I would suggest, in

99
essential services in general. Some of your Lordships may remember my Amendment No. 54 at the Report stage of the Employment Bill (when I was supported by my noble friend Lord Renton), which reflected this anxiety during the hospital workers' dispute Curiously enough, that amendment was opposed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on the ground that Section 5 of the Act of 1975 remained on the statute book and that that rendered it a criminal offence to break a contract of employment, inter alia, to endanger human life, or to cause serious bodily injury—
Lord Renton: If there is a conspiracy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Of course, if there is a conspiracy to do so. In the context of labour law as it has developed in those circumstances—I am grateful to my noble friend—there is the conspiratorial element in the organisation of the industrial action. But I agree unreservedly with my noble friend Lord Nugent that it is nonsense to seek to have resort to the criminal law and, with the utmost respect, I wholly disagree with the view advanced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. It is high time we had no criminal sanctions against workmen in connection with industrial relations. Some other means must be devised. The civil courts will never, should never, must never, order a man to work. That is slavery. The criminal law is inappropriate. Some other means must be found; and they must carry with them a requisite degree of acceptance.
All noble Lords appreciate that there is no fail-safe mechanism, that there is no universal panacea. It is apparent that this subject is under active consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at this moment; and, indeed, was so long before paragraphs Nos. 59 to 60 of the Green Paper appeared, and was so in the light of the recent events to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred. But the question is this. What is to be done? Perhaps a cooling-off period. That involves a temporary withdrawal of the right to strike. Perhaps statutory, arbitral machinery, such as is proposed by Amendment No. 125 in particular. That is a permanent withdrawal of the right to strike. Perhaps other means.
I would urge your Lordships to reject this amendment for five reasons. First of all, it pre-empts the options available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the present time, and it is apparent from the interview that he gave on television last night that he has not yet made up his mind which option he is going to take. Secondly, it affects a single-service industry, the water industry, whereas we must come to grips with the problem in all service industries generally. Thirdly, as it stands, and as has been recognised by my noble friend, it affords no right of action to the consumer because Sections 15 and 16 of the 1982 Act probably do not afford any locus standi to the consumer to pursue. Fourthly, which is very important, it forecloses on due consultation with the unions, which must be had before any massive change of direction is to be made in industrial relations law—another point fully acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Nugent.
100
Lastly, and perhaps least, it could be that this option, the mandatory statutory machinery, the arbitral machinery proposed by this amendment, would not be acceptable because of its inflationary aspect, which adds an inflationary bonus above the ordinary cut and thrust of negotiation between employers and workers. But for all these reasons at this stage I would respectfully suggest that it would be premature to carry such an amendment, and that this Bill at this time is not an appropriate vehicle in which it should be carried.
Lord Shinwell: It occurs to me (but I may be proved to be wrong when I so surmise) that we are engaged in a debate which extends far beyond the management and administration of the water industry. It seems to me that we are debating two principles which either, on the one hand, have been accepted and partly rejected, or, on the other hand, have been rejected in their entirety—depending very largely on what may be described as a political point of view. We are debating to some extent what kind of society we would regard as civilised; one that satisfies perhaps a modest percentage of the population but might have the effect of improving industrial relations.
My noble friend spoke of the possibility of dealing with this subject in the context of views on industrial relations. If one recalls what happened at the outset of the water dispute, it will be within the recollection of most noble Lords who read the newspapers on the subject and who gave it some concern that those who were threatening a strike or were about to embark on an industrial dispute seemed to be hesitant about it, seemed not quite certain whether they should take a drastic course of action or to wait for a decision by Her Majesty's Government or even by those who were responsible for the management and administration of the water industry.
This was largely because of the attitude—I regret to have to say this, but I think I am justified in making reference to it—of the press. It seemed to me at the time that the press were looking forward to a dispute which might have an effect on our political situation in readiness for what may happen in the course of the several months that would pass before June or October, or what-have-you, was reached. It was a pity that the press did not give it the consideration that it deserved instead of seeming to provoke the waterworkers to undertake all that is associated with an industrial dispute, thereby imposing severe hardships, as undoubtedly it did, on a very large section of the community. No one can deny that. I would say that every Member of your Lordships' Committee regrets that that should have happened.
I mentioned two principles. One of them is that those engaged in labour have a perfect right within the law to withdraw their labour as and when they think it necessary. That cannot be denied. It is embodied in our legislation. Almost from the beginning of this century a number of people associated together in what was then described as the Labour Movement to oppose anti-trade union legislation. As the result of various incidents—the Taff Vale dispute, the Osborne judgment and a number of other matters which I recall—the Labour Party was formed. The Labour Party was in fact formed out of the anti-trade union legislation, as they understood it.

101
That has been going on throughout the years with amendments to legislation, new legislation, advanced legislation, new ideas, new concepts and the like. Now we have reached the stage where this dispute has come to an end and we are considering what is best in the circumstances in order to avoid a similar dispute. We must endeavour to prevent any hardships being imposed on the population of our country, our industries, our general body of consumers. That is why I ask: what can be done?
It has just occurred to me that the subject we are discussing extends far beyond the administration and management of the water industry. This is a matter for discussion between the Government of the day—either the present Government or some future Government, of whatever political opinion—and those responsible in the trade union movement; that is, to a large extent (probably 80 per cent.; it may be more, it may be less) those associated with the Trades Union Congress. Why should there not be discussions among those associated with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, members of the Government and perhaps a number of industrialists associated with water supply? Why should that not happen and develop in some form a more satisfactory concept than that which now operates? Why is that not done?
The other principle, of course, apart from the one I have mentioned of the rights of those engaged in labour to withdraw their labour as and when they think necessary, concerns those who believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that what is regarded as essential in the interests of the general body of consumers and the industry should not lead to an industrial dispute. Indeed, that was developed in the course of the recent trouble in the press, in your Lordships' House, in the other place and elsewhere. What should be regarded as essential is something that the noble Lord opposite referred to in relation to the trouble that occurred over the health service. He referred to the trouble that occurred over the health service and that some people regarded the withdrawal of labour by those associated with the National Health Service as interfering with something that was regarded as existing essentially in the interests of those who required the service. What is essential? What is not essential? Who is to say what is right and what is wrong in either case? It is very difficult to find a solution to that aspect of the problem.
Therefore, what occurs to me—if I may venture to offer a proposal to your Lordships—is that whatever may happen in the course of this debate (whether we accept the amendment or oppose it, or whether we oppose what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has proposed and what has been said by my noble friend on this side of the Committee) I propose setting that aside or coming to some conclusion of a temporary character until those bodies who have a status in the country can discuss the matter: first of all, Her Majesty's Government, of whatever political complexion, and also the trade union movement, which, whether some people like it or not, also has a status in the country as one of our national institutions.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, speaking from the depth of his great experience, has
102
very clearly indicated the dilemma which faces the community and faces Parliament in considering two conflicting principles, both of which are well established. One is the right to strike, the other is the right of the community to continue to receive essential services for which it pays. In the case of the police of course we do not acknowledge the right to strike.
These two principles surely should not be beyond the wit of Parliament and of the trade unions somehow to resolve. It was quite intolerable that a whole civilised nation like ours, nearly 60 million people, should have been held to inconvenience, hardship and, it could be said, to ransom, by a small body of essential workers numbering fewer than 30,000, because we had not devised adequate means to deal with such a situation.
On the amendment of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the alternative amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford—to whom I always listen with sympathy for I was born at Dartford—we now have the opportunity of considering this matter, but in relation to the water supply industry only, whereas it is a much bigger question than that, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has pointed out. My noble friend Lord Nugent has an amendment which indirectly might be thought to solve the problem. If he has it in mind that making the adjudication part of the contract of service and the breach of the contract leading to civil action against those people who individually or collectively break the contract, then it could be said that a sanction is being introduced which overcomes the difficulty about interfering with the right to strike. It provides a sanction. But having listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the five reasons which he gave, I must confess that though I felt great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Nugent, I think that my noble friend Lord Campbell was right to point out, for the reasons that he gave, that we cannot deal with this matter in this way on this Bill.
I wonder whether I may make just two further comments. One arises from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. The noble Lord, Lord Irving, expressed the point by saying that there is no substitute for good industrial relations. I regard that as a counsel of perfection. Alas, it is almost a counsel of despair because although good industrial relations are, fortunately, the more general rule, experience has shown that there are things which enter into good industrial relations which sour them, which prevent them from providing the answer for the community. One has only to consider politically motivated people, especially I am sorry to say when there is a Conservative Government in power. One has only to consider the way in which the endeavours of honest, good, moderate trade union leaders are impeded by the action of militants. We have had to put up with that sometimes in essential services also. So we must not—we dare not—rely simply upon that counsel of perfection.
My other comment is this: that, alas, the system of industrial negotiation that we have, even when it is accompanied by compulsory arbitration, provides a built-in guarantee of more or less inflation, as my

103
noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out in regard to his fifth point. When my noble friend Lord Nugent suggested that there should be an adjudication board consisting of an independent chairman, perhaps of our profession (a lawyer or, more eminently, a judge), one representative of the trade unions and one of the employers, I thought: "Oh, there is going to be the usual horse-trading, the usual compromise and the usual contribution towards inflation."
If I may make a general point in conclusion, I hope that if we are going to rely upon compulsory arbitration or adjudication on any occasion in future, we should always have five people, not three. We need an independent chairman and representatives of both sides of industry and we need to have represented the consumers and the national economic interest. I therefore think there should always be a representative of the Treasury or the Department of Trade on any such tribunal; and then we may get solutions which will not be a guaranteed contribution to inflation. I think we owe a great debt to my noble friend Lord Nugent for raising this matter. I have not widened the debate too much: I have only followed what others have said. But, valuable though this debate may be, I doubt whether it can result in a Division which would provide a solution.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I very much welcome the constructive nature of the debate that has taken place so far. I am sorry that, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in particular—with whom, not for the first time, I found myself very much in agreement—I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I simply do not think that it is practicable, without a greater degree of consent than is at present apparent, to invoke the law to prevent people directly involved in disputes, even where they may endanger life or limb, from withdrawing their labour if they are determined so to do. I do hope that in saying that I shall not be accused of caring more about the right to strike than about the right to live, because that is not true.
The great majority of ordinary British working people, in my view, do not want to strike and will normally do so only if they feel they are being exploited or treated unfairly. What is necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said so aptly, is to find some means whereby the pay and employment conditions of people engaged in these essential services can be so determined that they no longer perceive the need to take industrial action and are willing instead to behave with sufficient responsibility to ensure that the community does not have to suffer continuing disruption. I doubt very much whether that means is to be found by imposing immediate statutory arbitration in the water industry alone.
In the debate on the gracious Speech last November, I suggested in some detail a possible way in which pay determination arrangements for people employed in key occupations might be introduced with general agreement. I will not elaborate on that suggestion now, except to say that in my view any such arrangements need to cover many more people than those engaged in the water industry. A great deal more consultation will
104
be necessary—and here I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, had to say- before any such arrangements can be implemented. I repeat that a great deal more consultation is required.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said—and I thought it was typical of him so to do—that he would like to see a consensus in this matter. So would I; and since I do not feel able to vote for his amendment as it stands I can only hope that he will not place me in the position of having to vote against it. Somehow it is in the nature of the discussion that has taken place so far that I do not think I shall be put to that test.
I am glad to support, so far as it goes, the amendment which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. In my view, it is highly desirable that there should be consultation with the relevant unions with a view to establishing, after the reorganisation of the water industry, an agreed negotiating procedure under which unresolved disputes should ultimately be referred to arbitration. But I feel that a lot more education is needed before negotiators are sufficiently convinced of the desirability of making collective agreements legally enforceable contracts for them to be workable in this country. That difficulty, it seems to me, is recognised in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Irving.
At the same time, the feature of the recent water dispute which was most objectionable to me—and I daresay to many of your Lordships—was the failure of the unions to honour the undertaking in their current procedural agreement to go to arbitration. Against that background, I should like to revert, if I may, to a suggestion which I made in a debate in this House on trade union immunities nearly two years ago: namely, that the Government should consider introducing a further code of practice dealing specifically with negotiating procedures. Basically the idea was that throughout British industry arrangements should be established like those operating elsewhere in Europe, under which disputes concerning agreements already entered into should be settled ultimately by arbitration instead of by industrial action.
The provisions of such a code might thus become admissible in evidence and taken into account in proceedings before an industrial court or a tribunal. In that way I thought it might gradually, and with a sufficient degree of consent, be possible to reach a position where the organisers of industrial action taken in breach of collective agreements would no longer have legal immunity and could be sued for damages.
In reply to that debate, the Government spokesman—I think it was actually the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie—was kind enough to say that serious consideration would be given to that proposal. Yet when, during our discussions on last year's Employment Bill, I reminded the Government of that undertaking, I was told that there was no plan to advance the matter. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that I was going to raise this matter again and therefore I shall quite understand if he does not feel able to give me an immediate answer; but if that is still the position, I should like to know why it is.

105
For the rest, it is my view that in essential services such as water supply, as elsewhere in industry, the best hope of making progress lies in increasing employee involvement, and particularly in achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees in these undertakings of the relationship between pay, prices and jobs. That may sound an unexciting and lengthy process, as indeed it is; but I fear that any attempt prematurely to enforce collective agreements by law will, as the Donovan Commission concluded and as was demonstrated by the outcome of the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, fail until such time as changes in our dual system of collective bargaining arrangements have been effected and the incidence of unofficial industrial action has been greatly reduced.
Lord Howie of Troon: I want to do something which it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams I would ever dare to do, and that is to disagree with both of my noble friends Lord Irving of Dartford and Lord Shinwell at the same time, and to go further than that and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is clearly in the right in this instance. I hope that, whether or not he is successful in carrying the amendment today, he certainly carries the idea and persuades the Government, whom we know to be open-minded in all matters.
But, first, like my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford, I should like to declare an interest. He declared an interest in that he had a relationship with a trade union, and a very important one at that. The interest that I declare is the interest which we all have in this House and elsewhere as consumers. We are all occasional users of water—in moderation, it is true—and we cannot escape it. But this fact, that we are all consumers of water, highlights the weakness in the case of my noble friend Lord Irving.
He, to my mind at least, laid out clearly, strenuously and convincingly the generalised argument in favour of trade union activity in the normal relationship between employer and employee. But the case that we are considering today is not of that order. Because water is an essential, the strike or the industrial activity, whichever form it takes, moves beyond being a dispute between employer and employee and becomes, by its very nature, a dispute between the employee and the consumer. That means that the strong arguments, which my noble friend Lord Irving used in one context, do not survive when they are translated into this new context.
By its very nature, a strike in an essential service industry of this kind, regardless of the intentions—however pure they are—of the unions, must be directed against the consumer, and these are the very consumers whom the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, desired to be drawn into this. I think that, in some respects, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was correct. In so far as there is some kind of tribunal, it must be a tribunal of five, if you can have such a thing, rather than a tribunal of three. So I think that there is great strength in the argument that, in these essential industries, strikes should be forbidden or, if not forbidden entirely, subject to the strictures of this amendment.
106
But that, of course, as my noble friend Lord Irving rightly hinted, lays employees open to great danger. It is not always the case that people who give up the right to strike find that they are rewarded by justice; and under some Governments the justice would be less than under others. I do not name any Government in particular in that respect. So that means that if employees give up the right to strike and to attack the neighbours—which is what they do, however well-meaning they may be—they must be given some other kind of safeguard, which must be some form of comparability in their earnings with the earnings of others. That comparability has to be worked out through some kind of public board. Whether the public board is the tribunal, as instanced in this case, or whether it is some longer-standing organisation, this is not the place to argue today. But there should be a machinery which replaces the strike weapon as a means of acquiring, or hoping to acquire, justice and which does it instead.
I thought that the recent strike in the water industry was an almost total shambles. It was an almost total shambles, because neither side really wished to be involved at all in a strike. I think both sides realised in their heart of hearts that they were in the wrong context for striking and, consequently, everything in it was handled badly. The only element of professionalism which I, as an outsider, could discern in the strike was the performance of Mr. Jim Dickens, who at one time was a notable and persuasive advocate of the Tribune view in another place—and a most admirable Member of that other House he was, as all of us who were colleagues of his in those days will readily agree. He shone through that whole amateurish shambles as the only professional in sight. But, be that as it may, in the end the strike had to be resolved by something not unlike the kind of thing which I dare say underlay the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. It may not have been exactly what he had in mind, but it was an ad hoc version of something like what he had in mind.
I have only one last point to make before I resume my place. In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that both Front Benches were probably agreed to oppose him on this matter. Of course they are. In the face of sense, the two Front Benches always combine to oppose it. I hope that, whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, succeeds today, the idea that he has in mind succeeds and that it will not be too long delayed.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I heartily agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, has said. In fact, I myself have used his words in the past. We are inclined to forget that we are talking about a public utility. We ourselves are composed of nearly 90 per cent. water and for 29,000 workers in a public utility to hold the nation to ransom is deplorable. It is a question of what I call the last link in the chain. These water board workers have not invented water. They have not manufactured water. It is a gift of God or, if you prefer, nature, which comes out of the ground. They have not even erected the buildings or invented the machinery that pumps up the water. Yet they have this vast power. They can hold the whole nation to ransom, except for parts of Scotland where you just put a pipe in a burn. In other countries,

107
employees in public utilities, especially water, have to sign a special agreement to the effect that they will not strike. It is time that we in this country had something like that, because we are out of date. I shall not go on, because I came in at the end of the debate. But if my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford takes this amendment to a Division, I will vote for him.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: We have had a very good debate, although some may think that it was more appropriate to a Second Reading than to a Committee stage. But that seems to be a fate to which I am committed. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Nugent will be gratified by the very constructive nature of the debate and, certainly, I welcomed it for that. I, too, am speaking to Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 50. Perhaps I may say at once that my noble friend Lord Nugent has clearly thought out his proposals with great care, as we would expect of him. Nobody underestimates the importance of this subject.
To deal first with Amendment No. 16, your Lordships will notice that it seeks to reinstate provisions which are in the Water Act 1973 and which will disappear when the Bill becomes law. These provisions relate to negotiations over terms and conditions of service. Even when the Bill was first drafted the Government considered it undesirable and unnecessary for there to be statutory requirements as to arrangements to be made for the negotiation of agreements on pay and other terms and conditions of employment. The Government's view has been, and remains, that employers and trade unions should be free to establish whatever machinery they consider appropriate and to change it by mutual agreement, if and when circumstances require.
It is too early, perhaps, finally to draw any general lessons from recent events about industrial relations in the water industry or how they are to be improved in the future, but the all-out strike, which ended when it was halfway into its fifth week, can hardly be regarded with equanimity. The Government's mind is not closed to any possible further measures needed in the context of such strike action. We shall not hesitate to take any measures, statutory or otherwise, which we are convinced would be both effective and beneficial.
Section 26 of the Water Act 1973 provides for the National Water Council, which is comprised as to half its members by the chairmen of water authorities, to seek arrangements for the negotiation of conditions of employment, in very much the same way as this amendment proposes in respect of the water authorities, one and all. The recent strike and the recent difficult negotiations on pay occurred within a framework similar to that which would result from the present amendment. I am sure the Committee will agree that this statutory framework has not proved entirely satisfactory and that at the least the two sides should be free to seek any other framework which will serve them, and the public interest, better. Whatever views may have been expressed before, both by the parties and by others, I have no doubt that the right course is for all concerned now to think out afresh what negotiating framework is needed. I hope that my noble friend will accept that what is proposed is not
108
bound to help the establishment of the proper dialogue between management and employees in the water industry which is in the best interests of good industrial relations. In the light of that reply to my noble friend's amendment, I hope he will accept the Government's view.
To turn to my noble friend's Amendment No. 15, I am sure that we all understand well the wish to establish a means of resolving disputes in the water industry. I, too, share his concern—as must we all—in the light of the recent dispute and the way it remained unresolved for a considerable space of time before being finally settled in the way that it was. Partly with these events in mind, therefore, and partly for more general reasons, I must question this amendment which would have the effect, as my noble friend has told us, of setting up an arbitration board which would hand over to a third party the responsibility for determining the industry's wages bill, whatever the wishes of the two sides.
There is already provision for arbitration in the industry's national agreement—for example, if the two sides of the water industry's National Joint Industrial Council cannot resolve a difference. That provision rests on a statutory basis. Subsection (2) of Section 26 of the Water Act 1973, to which I have already referred, includes the words "with provision for arbitration" in its specification for the negotiating arrangements to be procured by the National Water Council. The NJIC agreement provides for arbitration by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or some other body as may be agreed between the two sides. The national agreement is that arbitration shall take place on the reference of either side and will be binding on both.
Whatever its foundations, however, arbitration is the last stage in the resolution of a disagreement and is only practicable where both sides are ready to resolve their difference in that way. That is a clear lesson from the recent dispute. It is to be expected that when the employers and unions consider what their negotiating arrangements are to be, they may wish to include provision for arbitration when other processes are exhausted. But the formulae must take account of the rest of their procedures and cannot be considered, let alone legislated for, in isolation.
I can illustrate this point by referring to the amendment itself, which says:
"Any dispute concerning any matter relating to the remuneration or other terms or conditions of employment…shall be referred to the [arbitration] Board".
It is impossible in legislation to specify who will refer disputes to the arbitration board, and on what basis. And what would happen should one party not wish to seek arbitration at a particular stage in negotiations? There are other problems to be faced. What is a dispute? Does it include a dispute involving only one worker? Who are the parties to a dispute? It is hardly practicable to work backwards from a particular form of arbitration to establish the rest of the negotiating machinery. Arbitration is an integral part of the machinery itself and cannot be considered in isolation. The Government do not wish to impose a particular form of negotiating machinery and so restrict the options available to the parties. ACAS is in being and available, with a wide range of experience and facilities.

109
Why is it inherently less suitable to ask ACAS to appoint arbitrators than to constitute a new body to carry out such arbitration as my noble friend proposes?
We also recognise—this point was brought out in several of the speeches which were made earlier, notably in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who speaks with such authority on these matters—that in a matter of this kind it is impossible to deal in isolation with one essential service. The essential point for the Government—and for the unions, come to that—in deciding how to pursue wage claims is surely that the interests of the consumer and the national economy must be paramount. We, for our part, will be bearing this point well in mind as we reflect on the recent sad events.
One other point is that there is nothing in the amendment which would prevent a strike from starting or continuing, once started. In that respect, does it not miss one of the intentions which may have given rise to it? With these considerations in mind, which derive from both recent experience and a more general view of what is politic and realistic, I have to say that the Government consider it inappropriate to prescribe in this legislation the form or framework, or the final tribunal, for the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment in the water industry or the resolution of disagreements about them. We remain of the view that, within the general framework of law and practice, each industry should be free to make and adopt its own arrangements.
In conclusion, I applaud—who would not?—my noble friend's motivation in bringing forward these amendments. With his background in the water industry, few, if any, can be better qualified to speak on the subject. I have answered at length, and in doing so I hope I have indicated to my noble friend and to others who have spoken the importance which the Government attach to the matter. There will be further consideration of it, and my noble friend's contribution will be of immense value, as will the observations of all noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend Lord Renton, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. This matter is of considerable importance, whose significance lies beyond just this Bill. For that reason, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend. While the future is all to play for, I hope he will understand why the Government do not feel inclined to go for the arrangement which he has proposed in the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has great knowledge and great experience, and he has drawn that to our attention with the amendment. He I think is in the same predicament as noble Lords on this side of the Committee. What concerns everybody is: what will happen to the procedures when the National Water Council is abolished? I want to reiterate something that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said: it is a topical amendment, it is topical because we have just had a recent water dispute. I am not so sure that you change legislation because you have a topical interest, because 50 years of collective bargaining in the water industry has not
110
produced any national dispute until 1983—I repeat, 50 years of collective bargaining and not a strike until 1983!
In this amendment we are trying to set up an arbitration on one strike. I accept what noble Lords have said about the inconvenience—in some cases the hardship—but I would not accept that 60 million people were held to ransom. I come from a very large city and I do not think those people in that large city, about 1 million of them, were held to ransom; I think a few hundred were inconvenienced. If we think of 50 years' of collective bargaining without any disputes, does not that reflect well upon the effectiveness and the lasting acceptability of the existing negotiating machinery? How the negotiating machinery should carry on was spelled out by the noble Lord the Minister. What we see in this amendment is an intent to interfere in that agreed collective bargaining arrangement. Of course, if one reads the newspapers, if one listens to the radio and the other media, we are all well aware that the Government are considering a review of public sector arbitration arrangements, those arrangements where employers should be encouraged to end unilateral access. If I was cynical—and I am not—I might pose this question to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent: is this initiative on his part to further the Government's intention? Is this laying down the path? Is a Water Bill one way in which perhaps the Government would get satisfaction? The noble Lord the Minister has said that he does not want it through a Water Bill, and that I would accept.
If we look at the amendment—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said that he did not think the wording was correct and could be amended—it reads as follows:
"The Secretary of State shall appoint a Water Industry Arbitration Board …"
Dear, dear! We had enough on Second Reading about the people the Secretary of State was going to appoint to the regional water authorities; we would be going into another debate if we were thinking who was going to be appointed to an arbitration board.
Though noble Lords have said how many persons there might be, there is nothing in the amendment that says one, two, three, four or five. There is nothing to say what qualifications. It does not say that the trade union movement shall be consulted, it says
"any individual or organisation"
which would be appropriate. Is it going to be a supposedly independent body? As the noble Lord the Minister said, it covers "any dispute". What disputes! Might it be a dispute on protective clothing? Might it be a dispute on safety? There are all these matters about which I think nobody would wish to go to such a board although they would have to do so.
Then we find in the amendment:
"… to consult with any individual …"
Does this mean a general chat round a table? Does it mean that the unions would no longer be able to negotiate? Then we have:
"… adjudication by the Board … shall form part of the contract of employment …"
I would have said, speaking from this side of the Committee, that this could only mean compulsion, and legally imposed settlements of disputes in

111
industrial relations matters are rejected by the British trade union movement. There might be one or two Members on this side of the Committee who perhaps do not agree wholeheartedly with that, but the British trade union movement think it is an abrogation of basic rights in a free society. Decades of collective bargaining as they have gone on do not in my view merit an arbitration board of this description.
Of course, as noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have said, "and be enforceable accordingly", obviously means that the workforce would not be allowed to withdraw their labour. As my noble friend Lord Irving said—and of course I am in full support of his amendment—a compulsory arbitration system which is foisted on either side, whether the employer or employee, will not work. The only way arbitration can work is by mutual principled acceptance of the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Irving, said—and I repeat—legally imposed arbitration is a recipe for conflict and not for conciliation.
I think all of us recognise that arbitration in public utilities tends to militate against the fuller consideration of the wider issues behind a dispute. They tend to degenerate into a technical discussion on the amounts of monies available which the Government feel the employer can pay. In that way there is no room for argument when the negotiations start, no consideration of social justice. Nobody can possibly say that in the recent dispute the water workers were in any way in what one would call the higher paid parts of employment in this country. Even if one uses the very maximum figures that were used, they do not come up to the average weekly earnings of the manual employees in the country.
I think what we have to say to ourselves is that we have in this country a system for settling disputes that go to arbitration. As the noble Lord the Minister has said—he uses ACAS as the example—there is the existing machinery in ACAS which the water industry can use and does use for settling disputes. Disputes of course can only come about when the two sides are failing to agree. ACAS has that machinery, and if we accept this amendment it will mean that ACAS are in a very difficult position regarding the water industry. They will be placed outside of what is a public utility, and I would have thought that that was not an acceptable position for ACAS to be put in because they will find themselves with a duty to uphold the existing procedures. Therefore, those in a public utility find themselves at a disadvantage as compared to every other aspect of industry.
There may be a great deal of concern regarding what might arise if fixing of wages and conditions is carried out by the individual regional water authorities in the future, and we shall have to come to that at a later stage. At the present moment the fixing of wages and conditions is carried out nationally. However, if—as perhaps might happen in the future—this will be in the hands of the regional water authorities, that might be another forum where one will get greater activity, where one might even get leap-frogging by trade unions trying to get better wages and better conditions. A much harsher water authority might try to clamp down on the workers in that area. I do not accept that the answer to the problems of the water workers' wages
112
lies in individual water authorities taking over the responsibility of the national organisation. It is also important to say that the amendment that has been moved would be extremely difficult to impose, and it could be well-nigh impossible to enforce on angry workers, at the most.
Perhaps there is an argument—and I could use it quite easily—that there needs to be a more coherent approach to public sector pay and conditions. But with the abolition of the National Water Council we are obviously getting ourselves into all these problems. Until the Government spell out quite clearly what will arise from the passing of this Bill, with all the functions that the National Water Council used to operate, we shall be continually having these debates, because there is nothing in the Bill that tells us who is to take over the responsibilities.
Noble Lords have talked about compulsory arbitration, but that does not guarantee swift settlement of disputes. As witness of that we need to look only at the protracted procedures in the Railways Staffs' National Council, and at how those arbitrations go on and on.
I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford. We have tabled this amendment to make quite sure that there is a negotiation procedure after the passing away of the water councils. There is nothing in what the noble Lord has told us. It will be left to individual water authorities to make their own arrangements. Therefore, it is important for us to put down something that will safeguard the interests of those who work in the industry.
I conclude by saying that all of us know—and I repeat what I have said previously—that the Prime Minister and the Government are of a mind to enact legislation against strikes in essential industries and to generally curb trade union power. We all know this, and we know that in the next few days or weeks we shall be discussing in this Chamber democracy in the trade unions—the Green Paper. The amendment that we have before us pre-empts that kind of discussion. If the Government, at some later date, think that it is wise to bring before Parliament a Bill that will curb trade union power, the correct procedure to do that is through a Bill which should be brought forward just on those lines—an amendment on trade union activity. It will then be debated in both Houses and a full exposition of the total case will be put forward. That can be debated, and that is the way I suggest it should be done. I reiterate what other noble Lords have said. It will be quite wrong, in my view, to start off that legislation by agreeing to this amendment. In other words, I think it would be a backdoor method of trying to get in that kind of legislation.
Therefore, I have to say that I oppose the amendment of Lord Nugent of Guildford and give my support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Irving of Dartford.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford replies may I make a very brief point? I understood that the advice given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was to the effect that he felt

113
it would be extremely unwise to deal piecemeal with this very important matter of pay determination in vital public services by singling out one section of vital public service workers—the waterworkers. I should like to know: what is the precise meaning of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin? Does he offer that advice as a justification for doing nothing at all, or are we to take it that he and the Government intend at some later date to do something more collective to cover these vital public services as a whole? In other words, I am again putting to the noble Lord the question that was put to the Government by my noble friend Lord Rochester during the debate on the gracious Speech, and on a later occasion. It was a fairly specific question regarding the Government's intentions in general. What I am saying is that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin is a vital one. It really is unwise to single out one section of vital public service workers and deal with them.
I also think that it is perhaps unwise to use that as a justification for doing nothing at all about an extremely important subject. So I should like to know from the noble Lord which way he wants us to take it. Does he want us to take his advice as meaning that the Government intend to do something about this subject as a whole at a later date and not that they merely want to ask us to do nothing at all ourselves?
Lord Bellwin: I shall respond equally briefly to that point. I made it clear—at least I thought I did—that I was responding to an amendment tabled by my noble friend—and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. I said quite clearly that I thought it would be wrong to deal with this in isolation for this industry. But we must also recognise that my noble friend is fully justified in bringing forward this amendment because here we have a new situation that is arising, through this Bill, for the water industry. What pertained previously will no longer apply. That is, previously there was the National Water Council, which conducted negotiations, but this will not be there in future under this Bill. Therefore, it is perfectly proper at this time for my noble friend, or anyone else, to bring this forward as an alternative. It is not for me to answer for my noble friend, he will do that much more competently than I can, but that is how I understand it.
As to the Government's line on the kind of situation that has arisen in industries of this kind, I think I said that I welcome debate in terms of the future. I think I used the expression, "it is all to play for", and that is why it is constructive that all that has been said should be said. We shall take note of it. To say that we will do nothing is to pre-empt the kind of things that the Government have talked about. As I said on another matter only last week in your Lordships' House, just a little more patience and—who knows?—we may yet see something which your Lordships can debate.
Lord Howie of Troon: Would it not be more valuable to deal with a matter such as this piecemeal and get it right a bit at a time rather than try something more all-embracing and get the whole thing wrong at once?
Baroness Birk: I agree that this has been an extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate. It
114
seems to me that what we are left with now is an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, which has been very highly praised but generally turned down, I think, by most people, for different reasons. We are then left with the amendment in the name of my noble friends. If that amendment is not accepted it means that the Bill will go forward—and the Minister has just said so himself—without any form of replacement for the type of machinery that has been operated until now by the National Water Council. It is perfectly true that in this Bill we cannot, and should not, be dealing with a whole code of practice for the trade union movement and employers, and for everything generally. That must be for the future, but I think that we on these Benches would feel very unhappy if this Bill went forward without anything in it at all.
The way we read it, at the moment it means that each of the authorities would be left to decide themselves and to make their own arrangements, so that there would be, as my noble friend Lady Fisher pointed out, the possibility—indeed, I would say even more than that, the probability—of leapfrogging. There could also be great differences between different parts of the country and different authorities. Therefore, I think that the only solution is for this amendment to be accepted or for the amendment standing in the name of my noble friends to be pressed, so that we have at least some machinery in the Bill for dealing with these problems at the present time.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: As my amendment was the start of this interesting discussion I should like to thank your Lordships for making it such a worthwhile debate. I confess that my motive for putting it down was not really in the belief that my amendment would be accepted. Back-Bench amendments are very seldom accepted in any circumstances, and, as I anticipated in my opening speech, both Front Benches united against me, so I was sunk from the start. My only noble friend was Lord Howie of Troon on the Back-Benches at the opposite end of the Chamber, who saw that there was some validity in the point that I was putting forward. Any suspicion that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, might have had that this was some deep-laid plot which was to bring in by the back door the start of the Government's new policy on the matter must have been completely swept away by the gallons of cold water which were poured on my amendment, very charmingly, by my noble friend Lord Bellwin.
I really come back to where I started. I felt—and I believe all noble Lords feel the same—that we had had an experience of a very unpleasant kind which we would like to see our people spared from in the future; that is, a future water strike. It is therefore incumbent on my noble friend and on his noble friends and his right honourable friends to give the deepest possible thought to the method that can be found to strengthen the negotiating machinery to safeguard the public against such a happening in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, made the point that the existing machinery has lasted for 50 years. In fact, it has not; it has lasted for only ten years. The existing structure was created by the Water Act 1973, which made the water industry a national industry and

115
therefore made these negotiations national in a way that they had never been before. Before, there were 166 individual water undertakings, I think it was, 29 water companies and 1,400 sewage authorities, and the whole thing was fragmented. Therefore, the punch which the three trade unions could bring to the negotiating table has been in action only for the last ten years.
Although I would entirely agree with the noble Baroness that these men in the water industry are peaceful, public-spirited men, they are not badly paid. With the increases now, their average earnings with overtime—a good deal of overtime—are up to about £150 a week, which is not too bad with an index-linked pension and security of job.
They are a peaceful lot. I am bound to say that when I had the privilege of conducting the negotiations for the employers' side we had some pretty long and arduous negotiations. In fact, it is a way of life to conduct an NJIC and an NJC, and I spent a great deal of my time doing it; but I found the men in the water industry very good to deal with. We won each other's confidence. I would never have thought that this industry would have drifted into such a national strike. But if ever a series of negotiations was mishandled from the start, this one was. The less said about it the better, I think. Nevertheless, it has happened, and I think it is essential that my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues should now really apply their minds to finding some way to safeguard the country against the same thing happening again.
Of course, I understand what a major concession it would be if the trade unions concerned here, or, indeed, in any other part of the public sector, gave up the right to strike. In the splendid speech of the noble Lord , Lord Shinwell, we heard the authentic voice of the man who fought for the trade unions to have the right to strike. I understand that that is sacrosanct, and something very solid has to be given if there is to be agreement—because there must be at the end of the day—to bring the trade unions and the employers' side together to find a better solution. But it is not going to be easy.
The noble Lord, Lord Irving, is absolutely right in saying that the major part of industrial relations is just hard work: hard work understanding each other's problems; considering them; giving where you can; where you cannot, explaining why you cannot; and throughout fostering human relationships, so that the machine works satisfactorily—because it is working continually. The employers must learn to be as professional as the employees—and the employees, in the voice of the trade union leaders, are very professional indeed. So that is the basis of it, whatever machinery one has. But my concern is to try to have some ultimate safeguard which would save our people from the experience they have recently suffered.
I feel that in that spirit this debate has perhaps added something. It has certainly given us some notable speeches. It has given us, from my noble friend the Minister, a reply with at any rate some comforting words. Like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I heard the Secretary of State last night, and he is obviously thinking of it, too. I guess that he may not be thinking of quite such a consensus as I should
116
like to see, but evidently the Government are thinking about it and realise that something needs to be done. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Irving of Dartford Lord Irving of Dartford moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Negotiations.
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of each water authority and other statutory water undertaker to seek, either in conjunction with every other such authority or undertaker or by means of such association or other person or organisation as may represent all of them for this purpose, consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between them and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the water authorities, other statutory water undertakers and any person referred to in section 3(4) of this Act with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in cases as may be determined by or under the agreements.
(2) It shall be the duty of every water authourity and all other statutory water undertakers and all employers coming into existence as a consequence of this Act to comply with any such agreement.
(3) Copies of any such agreement and of any instrument varying the terms of any such agreement shall be sent to the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: I think that it would be out of order if I opened the debate again, so I shall confine myself to moving formally that Amendment No. 16, the new clause, be set in the Bill. I beg to move.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Aylestone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Bacon, B.

Jacques, L.

Banks, L.

John-Machie, L.—[Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Bishopston, L.

Listowel, E.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Blyton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Brockway, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Melchett, L.

Byers, L.

Milford, L.

Chitnis, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ogmore, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Peart, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.—[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Roberthall, L.

George-Brown, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Hale, L.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Simon, V.

117

Stedman, B.

Underhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wade, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Stone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

White, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wigoder, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Winstanley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Maclehose of Beoch, L.

Allerton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ampthill, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Avon, E.

Mansfield, E.

Behaven and Stenton, L.

Mar, C.

Bellwin, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Mersey, V.

Caccia, L.

Mills, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Molson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Moyne, L.

Daventry, V.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Norfolk, D.

De La Warr, E.

Northchurch, B.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Onslow, E.

Dormer, L.

Orkney, E.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Porritt, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Richardson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

Romney, E.

Forester, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gainford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gainsborough, E.

Sandford, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Sandys, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Glanusk, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sharples, B.

Gray, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Somers, L.

Stamp, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hives, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strathspey, L.

Ingrow, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kilmany, L.

Swinton, E.—[Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Terrington, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Tranmire, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V.

Vivian, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Reservoir construction and the conservation of water supplies.
.It shall be the duty of each Water Authority, before seeking planning permission to construct new reservoirs which involve the loss of grade I and II agricultural land, or land within a Site of Special Scientific Interest or National Park, to satisfy the Secretary of State—

(a) that no alternative source of supply exists from neighbouring Regional Water Authority reservoirs or plant, and

(b) that all reasonable steps are being taken by the Authority to conserve water, and to make the most efficient use of existing water resources and supplies.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which also follows on from the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill and the dissolution of the National Water Council and the Water Space Amenity Commission, but which deals with a point which is certainly as important but rather broader than the amendments which your Lordships have just spent some time discussing.
In previous debates during the Committee stage and throughout the debates on the Bill there has been general recognition that it made sense to organise water authorities on a regional basis taking into account river systems, catchment areas and so on. There has been no real dispute about that division of responsibility. But it is fair to say that, although that is accepted, there is fairly widespread concern that there is not enough co-ordination and liaison between water authorities even under the existing system with the Water Space Amenity Commission (WASAC) and the National Water Council in existence, and in particular not enough co-operation and consultation on the points about which this amendment aims to do something. The intention is that all these different regional water authorities should take into account over-supply in one area and attempt to do everything possible to match over-supply with under-supply before a particular region decides to make a massive investment of public funds in new capacity, in new reservoirs in particular.
Another worry which is shared—I almost said "for once" but the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, would complain if I did so and, indeed, it would not be true—both by nature conservationists and those involved in agriculture concerns the loss of rural land. Very often it is extremely agriculturally productive land and on other occasions land of great importance either for amenity or for wildlife interests. There is a fairly widespread feeling in both agricultural and conservation and amenity camps that water authorities are rather too ready to invest in the large new reservoir instead of tackling what may be more difficult, more time-consuming, involve more difficult management decisions and involve smaller amounts of expenditure over a longer period—namely, taking steps to conserve water rather than provide more of it.
Let me give an example of reservoir building which has caused concern. First, in the early 1970s there was the Cow Green Reservoir in Upper Teesdale, where, from a nature conservation point of view, an enormous amount of damage was done and large amounts of alpine flora, which are very rare in this country, and some endemic species were destroyed. Rutland Water, by contrast, concerned the loss,

119
largely, of extremely productive agricultural land. I know that there is a great deal of quite justified concern nowadays among the farming community and people who farm in that area in particular, that Rutland Water, having swallowed up huge amounts of agricultural land, is not being used to anything like full capacity. As I understand it, very little use has been made of the Rutland Water Reservoir, and I hope that the noble Lord may be able to confirm that this huge area of agricultural land has been taken for a reservoir which is now not really being used to anything like full capacity in any event.
Rutland Water was a reservoir which was built in the late 1970s, but more recently Kielder was opened. This was built on the basis of plans which foresaw increasing industrial demand. The plans have been proved to be wrong. As I understand it, there is virtually no demand for the water from that reservoir. Not only is industry suffering from the depression, but in that area it is having to pay higher water rates to pay for a new reservoir which was to provide it with water which it does not actually want.
To take a current case, considerable arguments are going on in the Dartmoor area about the proposal to build a reservoir there—arguments between those who want the reservoir to be in the upland area and those who prefer it to be in the lowland area. Nevertheless, once again it raises the issue: is it necessary that more rural land be lost to reservoir construction and is each individual water authority really taking sufficient account of the overall picture in the country? That is why the amendment would put a duty on the water authority to consider that; and, in particular, where a site of special scientific interest or a national park on the wildlife or amenity side were concerned or, on the agricultural side, the loss of grade I or grade II agricultural land. I think that the amendment should be changed to include grade III agricultural land, which is the bulk of it. My own view is that in these cases water authorities should have to take special care and have a special duty in this regard before going ahead with their plans.
The second part of the duty that would be laid upon them, apart from looking at alternative sources of supply already in the national system, would be to look at the possibilities for conservation of water. It is a well known fact that a very large proportion of the water which is actually stored in these reservoirs—and I hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government can give an up-to-date figure—once released into the system, simply runs straight back into the ground because of leaks from the mains. So this huge loss of productive land, wildlife or amenity interests is being swallowed up by water which is then simply poured back underground because the pipes leak so much and because not enough money is being spent on keeping the distribution system up-to-date and in good order. So the distribution system is one side of it.
On the other side, measures can be taken to reduce the use of water. I have seen a quote from a study which showed that if London's toilets were converted to variable flushing so that they sometimes used more water than on other occasions, that would save an amount of water equivalent to the contents of a large
120
scale new reservoir. In other words, it would make the construction of one new reservoir unnecessary for about the same or a lower cost. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confirm that that is correct; that the Thames Water Authority, in fact, did such a study; that the results showed that that was the case; and that unfortunately, so far as I know, no water authorities have adopted that approach, whereby, instead of looking round for some new area of rural land to swallow up with water, they tried to encourage customers to use rather less water and therefore to reduce the demand.
This is a very reasonable request to put to water authorities and in the end it does not preclude them from building a reservoir should one be shown to be necessary—I would not attempt to do that. I am simply asking them to take special care and to give special consideration to these areas of rural land. I hope that the Government will welcome this and will see it as a way of allaying some of the fears which have been expressed about what appears to be a move in this Bill towards even more fragmentation of the water supply industry in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Gibson-Watt: I should like to speak to this amendment quite quickly; I shall not take up very much time. I certainly have some sympathy with the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, although I cannot in fact support his amendment. I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to two comments that he made in his opening remarks. One is that nobody wishes either good agricultural land or anything to do with nature conservation to be unnecessarily lost to water. But, equally, nobody will argue against the necessity of good water supplies not only for domestic but also for industrial use.
Secondly, in his remarks the noble Lord rather suggested that water authorities did not have sufficient contact one with another. Of course, his experience may be different from mine, but I happen to know that the role of a water authority and, particularly the chairman of any water authority, is a very invidious and difficult one. They are always criticised for something. In mid-Wales in the Elan Valley reservoir complex, which was once owned by the Birmingham Corporation, before the economic recession there was a plan for an extra reservoir above Craig-goch. Indeed, for a long time it was going to come about. This plan was to be carried out by the Welsh Water Authority in conjunction with the Severn-Trent Water Authority. I only wish to say to your Lordships that there is perhaps rather more co-operation between authorities than the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in his opening remarks.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to rise to support what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett said, not because I think that my noble friend is incorrect in saying that there is consultation between water authorities, but land use in this country is extremely critical and we are not very good at it. Since the war we have created quite a lot of unusable land by bad planning; we have created quite a lot of derelict land. At the moment farmers are criticised for over-producing; that is, actually for doing what the taxpayer and Parliament have asked them to do. But when the world comes out of recession—and history teaches us that one day it

121
will come out of recession—we must be very careful before we use up permanently good agricultural land.
When my noble friend Lord Mowbray was answering for the Department of the Environment I asked him a Question about the Rutland reservoir, which I believe has now dropped by something like seven feet round the edges, although I am not absolutely sure that I have the figure right. But there is a form of dead beach round the edge. Next door, just over the watershed, in, I think, the Severn-Trent Authority, a reservoir is definitely being built on which at the time—and this was about two years ago, towards the beginning of the life of this Government—the Guardian published a very strong leading article saying that this was rather a silly way in which to go about things. I am not saying that water authorities do not consult, but I suggest to noble Lords that if it is put in the Bill, they will have to consult. They will then have a duty upon them to consult. It is really a question of good housekeeping, and this is something in which we all ought to encourage everybody to indulge.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness White: I should like in general terms to support my noble friend Lord Melchett, although I would say to him that so far as the Principality of Wales is concerned there is virtually no grade I land. We have very little grade II land, and any reservoirs that we have are likely to be built on grade III or even a lesser categorisation of land. From our point of view that part of his amendment is almost irrelevant.
Lord Melchett: I do not know whether my noble friend heard me, but I have had that comment made to me and it is a good argument for saying that the amendment should cover grade III agricultural land as well, and I said that.
Baroness White: I listened to my noble friend with the utmost attention. I heard him refer to Grade III land, but it is not in the amendment as it is proposed. I am in a little difficulty about advertising the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in a debate on the water industry because unfortunately we have been pre-empted by this Bill, and the report has not yet been debated in the House as a report. But as we pass through the various stages of this Bill it is helpful to remind noble Lords that their own Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield—who unfortunately is abroad at the moment, and hence I am speaking in a sense for the Select Committee—has made a fairly thorough study of, among other matters, the question of methods of water storage. We reached the conclusion, as we state in this report, that most water authorities are satisfied that their resource needs will be met without major reservoir construction at least during the rest of this century, and several of them are fairly confident that it will be some distance into the next century before they are obliged to turn to reservoir construction for their water resources.
This is partly because of a new look in the storage of water. Among other things, considerable progress is being made in the combination of ground water—that is, underground aquifers—with river sources, and the techniques for using the underground waters to top up
122
river resources when they are low, and so on, are being developed the whole time. There is also what is called in the jargon "conjunctive use". We had a number of instances of this brought to our notice. For example, in Lancashire the North-West Water Authority are very proud of one of their schemes.
They are convinced that by bringing together several resources into an operationally integrated scheme the total quantity of water made available for supply was more than the sum of the yields of the individual resources if they had been operated separately. They admitted that the scheme was relatively costly both in investment and in operating costs. Nevertheless, it had provided water supply to meet the authority's needs into the next century with scarcely any works above ground. The only two new service reservoirs were underground and covered.
When we are discussing this matter of reservoirs we should recognise that considerable attention has been paid to new operational techniques in the matter of water storage. This is encouraging. We reached the conclusion that reservoirs are likely to be built in the future only where they are absolutely essential.
As someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, took a great interest in the proposed Craig-goch scheme, I think one can say that that was deferred not only because of economic recession but because the Severn-Trent Water Authority decided to use its underground aquifers as a first source before going to the expense of building the Craig-goch reservoir. I would further say that if in the western part of the kingdom more water supplies are needed in the future, then the Craig-goch scheme is one of the best that could be undertaken. It is in an area where we already have considerable reservoir installations and where there would be a minimal disturbance of either agriculture or population.
Lord Winstanley: I too should like to support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. It is a simple amendment. It does no more than require the water authorities to do in advance the kind of things which they are invariably asked to do when, at the end of the day, their proposals have to go to a public inquiry. Every time there is a public inquiry—and frequently there is on proposals such as this—the questions asked of the water authorities, and upon which evidence is given, are, have they demonstrated the need? Have they explored alternative sources? Are they making the optimum use of existing sources of water, and so on?
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is right to underline the importance of land as a resource within our community. There is no resource under such desperately heavy demand and in such short supply in these islands as land. Once land is submerged under water, then from the point of view about which I am talking, whether it is agriculture or nature conservation, or whatever, it ceases to be land. I am not saying that it does not then have other values, of course it does, but we have to conserve our supplies of available land not only in national parks, which are referred to specifically in the amendment, but in agricultural areas, and in fact throughout the country as a whole.
I acknowledge that the kind of forecasts which water authorities have to make are extremely difficult. One

123
can tell that by considering the experience which we all enjoy every year. Wherever we happen to live, we tend to find that for part of the year we are being told that we must not have baths, and we sometimes have to get our water from standpipes, and then within a matter of weeks we are all wandering about in wellingtons or taking to the boats. Plenty of water falls on our country, but we do not always collect it or conserve it as well as we might.
I acknowledge that it is difficult to make accurate forecasts. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to Kielder. There, of course, we had this enormous reservoir constructed on the assumption of, and in the anticipation of, an enormously increased demand for water from Redcar Steel and from ICI at Billingham—both places which are either closed now, or diminished so much that the demand for water in that area has been very much less. Therefore, an alternative use has had to be found for the Kielder reservoir until the time, perhaps 40 or 50 years' hence, when its water will be required for water purposes. Alternative uses are now being found. I merely underline that to show that I acknowledge that it is difficult to make accurate forecasts.
That being acknowledged, I am sure that with regard to the kind of land considered in this amendment—and it refers to grade I and grade II agricultural land—there is not a lot of either of those grades of land knocking about in Britain going spare, as it were, that we could afford to have submerged under water. I acknowledge that in the National Parks mentioned specially in the noble Lord's amendment there is very little grade I or grade II agricultural land, but there is land which is of immense value for other purposes. However, the difficulty of forecasting is acknowledged.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was right in what he said about Rutland Water. That was a matter on which there had been major errors of forecast. If we once acknowledge that, and acknowledge the vital importance of seeing to it that valuable agricultural land is cherished and protected, and also acknowledge the importance of preserving sites of special scientific interest, sites which are important for wildlife, and also in preserving countryside land in our national parks, then surely we have a right to insist that the water authorities, by one means or another, take the kind of steps envisaged in this particular amendment.
At the end of the day, when disputes over proposals for new reservoirs, such as the one on Teesside to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred, come to a public inquiry, it is invariably these points upon which the water authorities are cross-examined. It is invariably on these points that evidence is brought forward. The amendment merely requires the water authorities to satisfy themselves with regard to these points in advance. If, on every occasion and with regard to every possible future project, the water authorities satisfy themselves on these particular points, then the decisions which will be taken are more likely to have public approval, and less likely to result in conflict at the end of the day.
Earl De La Warr: I find this a sensible and important amendment for reasons I shall not rehearse
124
again because they were adequately given by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and more particularly on the agricultural side by my noble friend Lord Onslow. I have only two points to make. First, I agree with the noble Lord that grade III land should be included, and I hope he will find a way of doing that. Secondly—I say this because I am so seized of the importance of the amendment—I suggest we consider bringing in the Ministry of Agriculture at the point at which the Secretary of State is informed. It may be that the noble Lord has thought that out and there is some reason why that should not be done, in which case I should be interested to hear it. I am simply saying that, if anything, I want to make the amendment stronger.
The Earl of Gainsborough: I wish briefly to support the amendment because I have myself had close knowledge of Rutland Water, living close to it and being, at the time, chairman of the local authority in whose area the reservoir was being constructed. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was right to say that that reservoir has now been reduced in size because the water level has run down by about 12 feet all round. So much water was running out of the reservoir back into the limestone that it was costing a fortune to pump water out of the river to keep the reservoir level up.
That was one matter that was not properly looked into before and is one of the reasons why an amendment like this should be considered by the Committee; not enough was done at that time to look into all the possibilities that might occur, with the result that today only about 10 per cent. of the water is being used, and the rest is just nice to look at. People sail boats over it and go in for all sorts of other activities, but that was not what the reservoir was built for; it was built to provide water for the anticipated demand of the South-East.
I hope the amendment will be given consideration by the Government. It is true that most of the land that was taken by Rutland Water was grade III—some of it belonged to my family, but that is neither here nor there; we were quite prepared to see it being used if it was going to be for the benefit of the country—but some of it was grade II. If the Government consider that this is worthy of consideration as a principle, grade III land should be included in the amendment, as several noble Lords have suggested.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I can see no possible reason for not supporting the principle of the amendment, though, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested, the wording may not be entirely perfect. I also support the suggestion that, when the point at issue comes to be decided, there is a case for bringing in the Ministry of Agriculture.
One cannot but be somewhat appalled by the fact that, I think to this day, about 50,000 acres of agricultural land are going out of production every year in England and another 5,000 in Scotland. The most greedy devourers of it are not reservoirs but, I suspect, motorways and roads. Just as when land is submerged with water it will never return to agriculture, the same happens when it is submerged with concrete, housing or roads. Therefore, considering that at 50,000 acres a year, the equivalent of the County of Norfolk has totally disappeared, since the war, it is of crucial

125
importance that we pay more attention not only to the preservation of land but, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, to its proper use, be it for farming, forestry or the needs of the population in terms of water.
I think the idea is that at least one must convince the powers-that-be that one has examined grade I, grade II and grade III agricultural land, sites of special scientific interest and the national parks. Having done that, I am wondering where reservoirs will be put because I can think of little land that would be left. I recall my time at the Ministry of Agriculture and a plan to build a reservoir on, I suspect, either grade II or grade III agricultural land in the West Country. The alternative suggestion was made that land for it should be taken either from Dartmoor or Exmoor, and the roof went off with indignation from people who said it would be an outrage to put water in either of those places. While I support the principle of the amendment, it needs careful tidying-up.
Lord Davies of Leek: While I support what the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, has said, I would add a few caveats. I was pleased when my noble friend Lady White referred to the Select Committee which went into the question of science and water. It is a pity that we did not have an opportunity, before discussing this Bill, to debate the valuable report produced by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. I read the report and the debates that have taken place on the subject of reservoirs—despite the fact that I have not been in your Lordships' House lately—and it is clear that a number of reservoirs are almost unknown today. There are others which need masonry work and general attention; just like the sewers, they have been neglected. Research should be conducted into the matter.
I support the main contention of the Bill, but I must introduce the caveat that if we are to have an authoritative authority which, as part of its set-up does not like the attendance of the public or the press at its meetings, there could be problems. We know how at present farmers and people in certain areas can have vital information thrust on them too late. The Ministry of Agriculture should be brought in, but I would go further. The most active defender of the farmers, especially the small ones whom I represented (although not all of them voted for me; that did not matter because I liked them) is the NFU, and it too should be brought into the forefront of any great changes in this area.
In that way farmers generally, and particularly the small farmers on the contour line above 600 feet or, as in the Lakes and Pennine areas, those on the 1,200 foot contour—where there are some of the highest villages and highest country pubs in England—will have a better chance of knowing what is going on. Water is of paramount importance above the 1,000 foot contour level, enabling the small farmer to get water to his cattle at the right time. Consequently, reservoirs are often needed in hilly country. When we are thinking of reservoirs, let us also bear in mind the small, hardworking farmer in marginal areas who sometimes has to get by on less than 100 acres. There were 3,000 farms in my area, 1,400 of them under 30
126
acres. That is hard work. Those farmers should be kept informed about what is going on.
Lord Energlyn: It seems to me that the amendment is somewhat unnecessary and to some extent rather naïve. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, made a pertinent point when he said that many of these parts of Britain are above the 1,000 foot contour. They are the very ones the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, wants to preserve. Those areas will be producing reservoirs at high levels. They will provide water not only for the farms but also for the hydro-electric power for those farms. Many of those proposals have been held up by admittedly well-meaning objections to the formation of the reservoirs, which ostensibly are claimed to disfigure, or alter, the wildlife of the area. There is a naïve suggestion contained in paragraph (b), and therefore personally I should not approve of the introduction of the paragraph, because I should have thought that it referred to one of the natural functions of a water authority.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that your Lordships' Committee will accept that I am second to none, inside or outside the Chamber, in my determination to see the principles of conservation prosper. I hope that the Committee will also accept the fact that I appreciate the concern, which the Government most definitely share, that land should not be taken either unnecessarily or arbitrarily for the purpose of reservoir construction. It is therefore with sincere regret that I must tell the Committee that the effect of the proposed new clause would be damaging to the interests which, quite naturally, its sponsors wish to protect. It would succeed in ensuring neither that certain kinds of land are taken for a reservoir only when absolutely necessary, nor—as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said he requires—that a reservoir is built only if water from existing resources is used to the utmost. The planning legislation as it stands, together with Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, do that better, and I hope that your Lordships' Committee will agree not to disturb it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out, proposals to build a new reservoir, or to extend an existing reservoir, have to be the subject of planning applications to the local planning authority. Invariably there is then a local planning inquiry into the water authority's application. The inquiry will be held by an inspector, and in a case such as we are talking about he will be supported by expert assessors. The kind of issues with which the proposed new clause is concerned can be—and if they applied in a particular case, I am quite certain would be—thoroughly discussed by the parties at the inquiry. The important point here is that the discussion would be in public and what was said would be testable. The inspector would report to my right honourable friend with a recommendation, and my right honourable friend would reach a decision. He may or may not agree with the inspector's recommendations; but he would know that the water authority's case and the objections to it had been fully and publicly considered, and he would be able to reach a decision balancing the evidence.

127
What the new clause proposes would be a backward step in two respects. First, it would mean that my right honourable friend had already heard the water authority's case and had reached a view on it before, as part of the normal procedure for seeking planning permission, the inspector's report came to him. That would seriously prejudice my right honourable friend's quasi-judicial position when considering the inspector's report.
My noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be brought in. I would tell him that we cannot do that when, as in this case, the Secretary of State for the Environment acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Of course the other ministries' evidence on the importance of land is significant at any local planning inquiry.
Secondly, the new clause would mean that my right honourable friend would have had to be satisfied, or would have been able to have been satisfied, that the conditions which the new clause would impose had been met in private. That, I submit, would not be the best way of reaching decisions on these important matters. Not only my right honourable friend but also public opinion should be satisfied that all the issues have been fully and properly aired, and that at the very least there had been an opportunity to put counter-arguments. Otherwise it would be quite unfair—I should even go so far as to say, improper—to everybody, including my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and other noble Lords supporting him, asked various questions. I am afraid that I must say at the beginning that, with a new move afoot on public inquiries generally under the planning law, all the specific instances and suggestions which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and other noble Lords have made—on, for example, the use or otherwise of existing reservoirs; the adequacy of the piping system; and the various other points that have been mentioned—would be taken into account. In other words, all these inquiries would be very wide-ranging indeed. I suppose that, thinking of another subject, one could equate such an inquiry with the current Sizewell inquiry—
Lord Melchett: I am listening very carefully to what the noble Lord is saying; it is very interesting and helpful. He said that the question of the condition of a distribution system would be a matter which could be considered by future public inquiries. Would the noble Lord also include in the list the other question that I specifically mentioned: whether it would be as cost-effective, or more cost-effective, for an authority to take steps to reduce the demand for water, for example, for domestic use?
Lord Skelmersdale: I think that I should have to consider that point and return to it, if I may.
I am afraid that I cannot agree that Rutland Water is surplus to needs. It was designed originally to meet projected needs over a very long period, and that applies also to the Kielder Reservoir, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, reminded us, was planned at a time when anticipated industrial needs were much greater than they now are—
Lord Winstanley: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? On that particular matter, surely the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was with regard to the surplus water in Rutland Water which in fact is no longer in Rutland Water. I think that the noble Lord the Minister has to accept the point that water which may not have been surplus is no longer there because the level has been reduced by about 12 feet.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, but I would suggest that that is rather off the basic point of the argument, in that the reservoir has already been built. There is a perfectly good argument—which I have a feeling the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, might well accept—that in the reduction of the amount of water in the particular reservoir to which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, have been referring, there is increased opportunity for conservation of wildlife and plant life.
Before the noble Lord intervened I was going on to talk about Kielder Reservoir. The sad industrial decline of the area (to which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred) has meant that the demand is now much less than had been expected, but Kielder will meet projected needs well into the next century as an important reserve and resource for the North-East.
In what I hope he will consider as a slightly unfortunate phrase, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley said—and I think that I have his words correctly—that alternative uses are now being found for the Kielder Reservoir. I hope that he did not mean that had the reservoir not been there the need would therefore not arise, and that these uses would not now be identified. I hope that he did not mean that; I assume that he did not mean it. Much—
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, and since the noble Lord did not understand me, it would appear that I did not. All I said was that, since there has been a reduction in demand for water, to which the noble Lord has referred—and I acknowledge that; I also acknowledge that it could not have been forecast—alternative uses have been found. In other words, the Kielder Reservoir has become an extremely important centre for water-based recreation. That is quite valuable, and it is a very sensible thing to do with a piece of water that is not now used for the purpose for which it was originally provided.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I had indeed entirely missed the point of what he had been saying, and I am obliged for that elaboration.
To return to my basic theme, I would say that public inquiries can take account of all these factors; such as, for example, does a particular reservoir meet a proven need? Can the water be piped satisfactorily from somewhere else to supply the same need? Can the need be met in some other way? I said that I would look into the fact of conservation of water supplies for the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and I meant just that.
Lord Melchett: Was the noble Lord answering the point? I was talking about reduction of demand by consumers. It would be helpful to have it on the record if he is saying that that will be something that a future public inquiry would consider.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I did understand that noble Lord correctly—the reduction of demand by the use of conservation measures (if I may put it that way) within a particular industry or a particular domestic user. I am not able to give an off-the-cuff answer to that tonight but I will write to the noble Lord. I have spoken of the worthy objectives of this amendment. That they are worthy has been evidenced by the general support received from all quarters of the Committee. As I have said, without further thought, I believe that the amendment does not achieve its stated objectives and that existing legislation is adequate to achieve them. I hope the Committee will agree with that.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps my noble friend could help us a little further. He says that existing legislation is adequate to achieve the objectives. I think the reason why this amendment was put down is that that has actually proved not to be the case, because we have an imbalance of water supply in some parts of the country. The question of Rutland has been proven. If you knock 12 feet off (I do not quite know how many acres) it is a monumental amount of water. I suspect that nobody now would start to build Kielder. There is also the Trent area reservoir. If I had had the time, I would have done my homework properly. I apologise for not doing so. They wanted to build this just over the border. We then had the problem (in a way) of too many reserviors in Wales—mostly for Birmingham, saving the noble Baroness. Then the poor Welsh were the ones who had to pay the highest amount for their water. Again it is in the West Country where the largest amount of rain falls, yet they are the ones who suffer. At the moment there is a drought. My noble friend Lord Nugent went around producing water "out of the air" in 1976, the year of the drought. I just wonder if this legislation has achieved its objective.
I can understand that the drafting of Lord Melchett's amendment leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps it could be changed or we could consider coming back at Report stage with a clause which would place a duty on water authorities to consult with their neighbours to see if they could find surplus water from their sources. That would help. I think it is important to put something in the Bill at some stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will come back at Report with something.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend is confusing two situations. What he is looking at at the moment is past reservoir building in today's conditions. What I am saying is that the planning law was perfectly adequate at the time to give the necessary safeguards—safeguards which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and my noble friend who put his name to this amendment, genuinely and sincerely desired. I must say that I agree with them.
Lord Melchett: I think there is a real problem here. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said some interesting things. I would like to consider what he said and think about it before the next stage of the Bill and, in particular, I look forward to having something in writing on the one question he was not able to answer. The point is that, however comprehensive the planning machinery was in the past, and however
130
many issues could be considered at public inquiries, two things are nevertheless the case—and I would suggest that he think about this before the next stage.
First, some very bad decisions have been made. I say this, I admit, with the benefit of hindsight in changed economic circumstances. Nevertheless, they were decisions which were catastrophically wrong. It is all very well for those who defend decisions like Rutland and Kielder to say that they are going to be jolly useful in the next century. There are 1,001 things which are going to be jolly useful in the next century and which cost millions and millions of pounds. That is no good reason for spending public money on them today or for having done so last year. I do not think that argument is good enough.
The second thing that I would put to the noble Lord (and I think it was reflected in the debate that we have had on the amendment) is that there is widespread concern about this among many different interests. One has only to read the farming press at the moment about the proposed reservoir near Dartmoor to see that it is a current concern and not one that arose in the past. These decisions are not being taken after sufficient consideration of the points which the amendment covers. What was said in the debate today supported that. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who said that MAFF should be included. That is a good point—although it may be that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Secretary of State is the right one for the amendment to mention in view of what Lord Skelmersdale has said about the semi-judicial role which the Secretary of State plays following a public inquiry.
Perhaps the right thing—and I would have to think about this—would be to place a duty on an inspector at a public inquiry to give special attention to the particular points I mentioned. I would certainly wish to include—and my noble friend Lady White has emphasised that I should do so—agricultural land, for that is important in Wales. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, it is Wales which has either suffered or benefited—and I think that the general consensus is that it has suffered—from a large number of reservoirs in the past.
If I could deal with one other point raised in the discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, said that if you took all these areas into account, there are not many places left where you could put a reservoir. I want to emphasise that the amendment does not stop a water authority or an inspector or the Secretary of State from finally deciding to put a reservoir in the middle of a site of special scientific interest which is capable of being grade I agricultural land in the middle of a national park. But they will have to take a great deal of trouble and care before reachig that decision. A great deal of extra trouble and care is what the amendment is asking for as opposed to putting it in some place where none of those other considerations applies. I think that that remains a good point and one that we should put in the Bill. I will take account of what the Government have said and the comments of other noble Lords and come back to this at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 18:
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: We now come to a series of amendments which deals with the question of land drainage and improvement schemes. All of them raise separate points. I will try to introduce them briefly for I know that your Lordships have a good deal to get through. Amendment No. 18 deals with the question of cost-benefit appraisals and the fact that these are not available either to the general public or to other interested statutory or local government organisations concerned with particular land drainage schemes. These schemes are invariably withheld from public scrutiny and yet they contain the financial data by which the scheme is justified, and which it rests and on which expenditure of very large sums of public money rests as well. Every land drainage proposal of this sort is subjected to a cost benefit appraisal and these appraisals, as I have said, are regarded as secret, once they have been done, between the land drainage authority, the regional water authority or the internal drainage board, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Treasury.
This has been subject to very widespread concern by people of all parties and of many different interests; those whose primary concern is to contain the wasteful expenditure of public money; those whose primary concern is to prevent land drainage schemes which will damage the environment and show no real public benefit and those who show both interests or a range of interests in between.
The reason, under pressure, which the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government have given for this secrecy, to justify the withholding of this information which is gathered at public expense and which justifies the expenditure of public money, is that some of the information contained in these cost benefit appraisals is given by private individuals, on the whole farmers or landowners, who are, incidentally, potential beneficiaries of the schemes and, because this information is given in confidence, it cannot be released. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that when we were debating the Wildlife and Countryside Bill in November 1981 and it has been repeated more recently in another place. I shall come back to that in a minute.
There is widespread concern not just because secrecy in principle is wrong but it is being used to hide a number of fundamental flaws in the methodology of cost benefit appraisal, which means that, while a typical scheme will be presented as achieving more than the required test rate of discount, which is 5 per cent., more often the true rate of discount or return will be around 2 or 3 per cent. or even less.
Very briefly, there are a number of ways in which this can be achieved in drawing up a cost benefit appraisal. First, the financial benefits are assessed on the value of increased agricultural production, but the calculations exaggerate the economic gain estimation, because no allowance is made for the fact that the prices of many farm products are themselves subsidised by the taxpayer. In other words, the subsidised price of extra production is taken as wholly of benefit under the scheme, whereas, in fact, part of that price will, not always but very frequently, contain a small or even a very large element of public subsidy. That is therefore a cost to the nation not a benefit. Secondly, figures on the rate of return are distorted because forecasts of the realisation, in other words the take-up of agricultural improvement and increased production under schemes, are over-optimistic.
Thirdly, products subject to producer quotas—for example, potatoes and sugar beet—are treated in the cost benefit appraisal as if they were quota-free. In other words, it wrongly is assumed that an unlimited extra acreage of such crops can be grown once a land drainage scheme has been completed, even though there is a quota on that acreage, let us say, of sugar beet, which is a crop I know myself, and it is impossible for the farmer to grow any more of the crop at the rate of return which would normally be available.
Fourthly, projected yields used in cost benefit analysis are those which are theoretically attainable and they are not, as far as I know, ever based on actual yields obtained in the area where the scheme will take effect.
I would add a final point which has been put to me by someone who has been involved in drawing up such cost benefit appraisals, and that is that it is an extremely simple matter to make sure that the rate of return comes out at the magic 5 per cent. or more. All that is needed, if the rate of return looks a bit on the low side, is to put into the scheme an extra field of some crop which is particularly high yielding. Celery is apparently the Ministry of Agriculture's answer to everybody's problem in cost benefit appraisal. The yields are enormous. In any scheme which is showing less than a 5 per cent. rate of return, you bung in a field of celery and all your problems are solved. As I say, that was said to me by somebody who has been involved in the process. Nevertheless, the feeling that these schemes are widely and wrongly being drawn up to justify public expenditure must be met. The fact that they are so assiduously kept secret raises very widespread and legitimate concern.
It is my view that disclosure of cost benefit appraisals should be the norm—public disclosure to everybody. The amendment I put forward is a great deal more limited than that. At the moment, even bodies which are governed by the Official Secrets Act, which are quite clearly capable of honouring confidentiality, are not allowed to see a cost benefit appraisal. There is a case in point at the moment over a scheme in Norfolk which affects local authorities, the Nature Conservancy Council, a national park authority, the Broads Authority and the Norfolk County Council. Those organisations have all, as I understand it, been told that they may not see the cost benefit appraisal on the Yare barrage scheme—a scheme

133
which will involve considerable expenditure by ratepayers in the area, by the Ministry of Agriculture and others—because the water authority's money does not come from the water authority but from the ratepayers, the Government or a levy put on local authority rates. Yet the people who may be raising the money for the water authority—the local authority—are not allowed to see the cost benefit appraisal to justify the expenditure. That cannot be right.
As I say, the one argument, the first line of defence as it were, that the Government have on this is to say, "Well, the cost benefit appraisals contain confidential information". The Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Mrs. Fenner, said in another place on 17th February:
"Cost-benefit appraisals for land drainage improvement schemes are compiled from information obtained from individuals on a confidential basis and it would be a breach of confidence to make this information public". [Official Report, Commons, 17/2/83; col. 461.]
My amendment avoids that problem by allowing the information to be made available only in very specific cases and to an organisation whose staff are themselves covered by the Official Secrets Act and no more or less likely to leak the confidential personal information given than members of the staff of the regional water authority, the Ministry of Agriculture or the Treasury.
There is a second quite simple answer to this; and that is simply to aggregate the information. There is no need, in publishing a report or providing a cost-benefit analysis to another party, for the information to be indentified by farm, by landowner or by field. It is perfectly possible to provide a summary of the cropping pattern that is expected after the land drainage proposal is complete, and the extra income which is likely to be produced by that cropping pattern. That argument seems to me a non-starter, even if my amendment went much wider. As I say, it does not arise in this amendment.
The next argument used by the Government—and this is at column 462 on 17th February—is that cost-benefit appraisals are not the only thing taken into account. One might be able to aggregate the information, but many other things are taken into account and, therefore, "We do not need to bother to see these". That seems to me to be way behind the last line of defence. If the thing is not important, why bother to produce it? If it is not important, why do the Treasury make it a test of whether such a scheme can go ahead or not? If it is not important why bother about letting people see it? There really is no argument at all. It is an argument of desperation. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not be driven to use it or the argument about confidentiality tonight and that he will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I want to support the amendment to which I have put my name, which I suppose is not so surprising. I wish to say two things about it. First, this country is totally obsessed with secrecy in Government and it does not really seem to matter whether it is noble Lords opposite who are advising the Queen or my noble friends on this side in their advice to Her Majesty. It seems that we have this
134
obsession with secrecy which, as it is taxpayers' money, is the wrong way round.
Secondly, regarding confidentiality, if I am going to be the beneficiary of a drainage scheme, as a farmer, I do not see that I have anything to be ashamed of and I cannot really see that it is very confidential. If it were a case of industrial confidentiality, where you are seeking a market for something new and you want to hide your marketing strategy, I could understand that. But because of the method of agricultural marketing and support systems, I would think that the fact that my field is gong to increase its yield from two tonnes to three tonnes of wheat per acre, for the sake of argument, is not something that I particularly want to hide from my fellow farmers, from the taxpayer, from the land drainage authorities or anybody. I do not see that there is anything to be confidential about.
Furthermore, it would seem to me that this is a perfectly good, sound, Thatcherite argument. I must say that I never thought I would see the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, producing Thatcherite arguments, and it gives me a certain amount of pleasure to watch him. But if it is a question of public scrutiny of these figures and more accountability for them ending up by showing that some land drainage schemes are not worthwhile, then public money is going to be saved and we can then spend it on supporting some of the dotty things the Greater London Council spends money on or on something else. But at least we would know where the money was going, and that seems to me a very important, sound, Thatcherite argument. I am sure that is something which my noble friend, who is anxious for promotion, will follow with the greatest ease.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps on this amendment particularly I can produce yet another Thatcherite argument for not accepting it. I would refer the Committee to the actual wording of the amendment:
"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.".
What on earth do the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, or my noble friend Lord Onslow think the Nature Conservancy Council are going to do with this? Are they suggesting in all seriousness that this is going to produce better conservation of a particular piece of land? Are they suggesting that the Nature Conservancy Council will be diverted in any way from the strict scientific criteria which Parliament has imposed upon them for deciding such things? I simply cannot believe that. But even if I am wrong on that, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said at length, I have other reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. As part of their general duties to further conservation, the drainage authorities are already required to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before carrying out works in any area of land which has been notified to them by the council as being of special interest by virtue of its flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features.
Over and above this, land drainage matters are currently subject to a review by an inter-departmental committee and Ministers are intending to publish a discussion paper in due course. I suggest therefore that it would be inappropriate to impose on water authorities

135
any further responsibilities in relation to land drainage prior to the publication of this paper, when all the interests concerned will have the opportunity to comment. This amendment would require the disclosure of a cost-benefit assessment for any proposed land drainage improvement scheme when this is requested by the Nature Conservancy Council.
Also these assessments are compiled from information obtained on a confidential basis—the noble Lord has already attacked my argument but perhaps I may give it in a slightly different way from the standpoint from which he attacked it. It would therefore be a breach of confidence to disclose this information either to individuals or public bodies, whoever they may be, and it would be likely to hamper effective scrutiny by reducing the willingness of the individuals concerned to co-operate.
The cost-benefit assessment is only one of the factors taken into account in deciding whether to approve a scheme for grant. It is no more than a basic test of economic viability which every scheme must pass. Financially unquantifiable effects such as damage to wildlife, the risk of people drowning and the advantages to public health are also taken into account. Disclosure of the assessment would therefore serve little real purpose, as it would not provide the whole picture.
This amendment obviously revolves around exactly what are cost-benefit appraisals, and, in my opinion, they are no more than these basic tests, as I have said. The Minister of Agriculture, in considering whether to offer grants, and hence to use these, has also to take account of the duty imposed on him and on water authorities and internal drainage boards by Section 22 of the Water Act 1973, as amended by Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to further the interests of conservation and to lessen the risk to the public.
The objections to disclosure are twofold. First, the assessment of benefits to agricultural areas is based largely on returns to farmers from the increased production made possible by the improved drainage. Information on their future business plans is given by farmers in confidence and it would really not be proper for it to be disclosed, even on a restricted basis. Secondly—
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord goes on, would he deal with the suggestion I made that the cost-benefit appraisal would be just as useful if the information were aggregated? In other words, if particular copies of plans were not identified with particular land-holdings but just given as a total acreage summary of whatever it happened to be in the appraisal, that would completely get over the problem that he has.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid it would not get over my basic hurdle of what the Nature Conservancy Council is to do with this information once it has it. Considerable delays could well be caused by opponents of sensitive schemes requiring detailed discussion of what is, as I have said several times in my reply to this short debate, no more than a basic test of economic viability. On all these counts, I would ask the noble Lord to reconsider this amendment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: It really is an appalling situation when we come across these objections to having the kind of information that the general public needs and that Members of your Lordships' House need when it comes to putting into operation any of these particular schemes. This seems to be—I will not say one of the last havens, but one of the most obvious and dreadful havens of secrecy for no known reason. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, between them have thoroughly demolished the case that there is any real need for this confidentiality. Admittedly, once the thing has been entered into on a confidential basis the authorities do find themselves in a difficult position, but of course it ought never to have been entered into on such a confidential basis. Landowners and farmers are the trustees of the land for the community—a concept which I think is very well taken and indeed accepted widely by people of all political parties. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, there is very little in what I might call the industrial details—the economic details—of the agricultural plans which by being made public is going suddenly to mean great disaster, or that kind of thing, for the individual farmer.
It is becoming increasingly impossible for the public as a whole, for Members of Parliament and for everyone who has to deal with these drainage plans—some of which, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, are being pushed through with gravely inflated ideas as to the benefits that are going to flow from them. One is before your Lordships' House at the moment—the Severn-Trent scheme, with which I have something to do—and I do think it is intolerable all round that we should not have publication of these details.
What is the Nature Conservancy Council to do with the information that it gets? That is what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked. The answer is to publish it. It may not be the right answer. This may not be drafted exactly right. It may be that the Nature Conservancy Council should be first. But that we should all have it is really a reform that is very necessary.
The Earl of Onslow: The whole point of the amendment is that the Nature Conservancy Council do not intend to get hold of the information by the back door and put it on the front page of the Muddlecombe-under-Slosh Advertiser. They will use it for their own purposes, and when the noble Lord has finished I will suggest a very sound and money-saving use for that information.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I shall look forward to hearing that, and I have no doubt that that can be so. But what I am saying is not necessarily that just the amendment by itself is something which I support. I do not have my name to it, but I think that the idea behind it is a reform which is absolutely necessary, and which we in the legislature must do something about as soon as possible. This is a prime way of tackling this matter, and I hope that the Government will have another thought about it before the next stage.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am getting in a terrible muddle now. As I read the amendment, it is only the

137
council which will get this cost benefit analysis, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, wants to publish it, and I get the feeling that my noble kinsman Lord Onslow also wants to have public government. But this amendment does not say that; it refers to just the council. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, agrees that I have interpreted it correctly—
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, and he has interpreted it correctly. What I certainly feel—and my view is clearly shared by the rest of your Lordships—is that it would be much better if this information were widely disseminated. But the noble Lord will appreciate that, because of the usual way of drafting amendments in your Lordships' House, I have tried to be modest and to make as small a change as I could envisage, in the hope of getting, as I am sure I will, the noble Lord's wholehearted support.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I always try to understand what he is thinking, as opposed to what he is writing. But I can only understand what he has written in the amendment, so we are on the same net. If I may continue, if that is the case, the people who will get the cost benefit analysis are the NCC and they will look at it. My question—and I am going to answer my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—is: what will they do with it? Here we are giving a cost benefit analysis to an organisation—I am sure that I shall now get into trouble—which is greatly over-pressurised. Many are great experts on birds, butterflies and bees, but one thing that they are not experts on is human nature and the whole set-up in agriculture. Until they get to that stage—and they will, given 20 years like the Ministry of Agriculture, who took that time before they were confident—there is no point in giving them this information. Their job is to advise the Minister—which they do—on the scientific side of a particular development; not to have the final veto.
Baroness Seear: Would the noble Lord explain why knowing about bees prevents the NCC from knowing about human beings?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I can see that the noble Baroness was at school much more recently than I was. Of course, it does not prevent them. But what I am saying is that they are trained in that way and they are not trained in agriculture as such. Meet any of them and they will be the first people to admit that. They are not given an overall training.
My first objection—and I shall not keep your Lordships waiting any longer—is that by this amendment you are putting a quango, like the NCC, above the Minister. I have reservations about Ministers—I am sure that all of your Lordships do—but to elevate the NCC into a position above an elected Minister of the Crown seems to me a crazy thing to do.
The Earl of Onslow: I promised your Lordships another session on this wretched thing, but I shall try to be as brief as I can, because we want to get on and we have been 25 minutes on this amendment. The
138
Nature Conservancy Council, who have a duty to enter into management agreements where sites of special scientific interest are concerned, have to know about farming, cost-benefit analyses and human beings. If they see a cost-benefit analysis which turns out to be faulty, they will offer less of the taxpayers' money on a management agreement.
I do not think any of your Lordships would recommend that a farmer should be compensated by more than the amount that we, in Parliament, have said he should be paid under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. We do not want to give him extra money. We have enacted that the Nature Conservancy Council shall give him fair and reasonable compensation for any notional loss of profit, in the event of the NCC objecting to an improvement scheme on grounds of conservation. If the council have the cost-benefit analysis they can then argue that it is wrong and they will not have to give so much of the taxpayers' money to a farmer in the event of a management agreement. I should have thought that that was something which your Lordships would support on grounds of both equity and fiscal prudence.
Lord Melchett: Some calculations which I have seen suggest that farmers contribute less than 10 per cent. to the cost of land drainage schemes from their drainage rates. All the other 90 per cent. comes from the public purse generally. It seems to me, therefore, that in this case there could be some argument for elevating somebody or other above the Ministry of Agriculture, before such decisions are taken, but that is not what this amendment does. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, it is going over the top a little to suggest that simply providing some body with some information, which is available to the Minister anyhow, and on which the Minister makes the final decision unencumbered by anybody else, is to put them above the Minister. That is patently not the case. The NCC can only give advice and make representations about something which, at the moment, they cannot even see.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale—as I am afraid I thought he would—relied on the two tired old defences of this monstrous secrecy. First, he said that this information is given in confidence by individuals, and therefore should not be disclosed. He did not adapt his defence to take account of the wording of the amendment, which he might have had the courtesy to do, because the amendment suggests only that the information goes to a statutory body, the NCC, and it does not seem to me that the defence is useful in this situation. But when I pressed him—and I shall have to look at Hansard tomorrow—and suggested that, anyhow, the information could be lumped together, so that individuals' land and cropping programmes could not be identified, the noble Lord said that that would get over the problem. So at least that defence can be forgotten.
The noble Lord said something extremely important. He said that the cost-benefit analysis was the basic test of economic viability which every scheme must pass. He said that in a way which was attempting to say that this is not at all important; that there are other things after that which we consider. But a basic test which every scheme must pass is of

139
fundamental importance. To use that form of words to suggest that this is not at all important, and that we should not be worrying about it, is ridiculous. If the noble Lord looks at what he said, he will see that he was contradicting himself as he spoke. This is of fundamental importance. No scheme can proceed without overcoming the basic test of viability, and that is why so much concern is expressed about it. It may not provide the whole picture, but the picture does not even get shown until it gets over that test, and that is why it is important.
Finally, the noble Lord asked: what are the NCC going to do with this? The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said that they will look at it with a very inexpert eye. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, pointed out, the NCC are looking at much more detailed confidential information—such as farm management accounts over three years and the whole detail of the accounts; not just the proposed cropping on certain fields, but every item of expenditure on a farm—in order to negotiate management agreements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. So the NCC are bound to develop expertise in this field. In any event, in public inquiries where the cost-benefit analysis has been made available, particularly at Amberley Wildbrooks, it is clear that there are consultants who are available to the NCC, and who can look at these matters and advise the NCC if they do not have their own expertise.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made the extraordinary suggestion that it did not matter whether or not the NCC saw this: that they are able to express their own view about the scheme and that is all that matters. It is rather like saying that someone can be adequately defended in court without ever hearing the prosecution case. "So long as a defence can be put up, it does not matter what the other chap says", is what the noble Lord is asking us to believe. That cannot be acceptable to your Lordships' Committee and I hope noble Lords will accept the amendment.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with this amendment, he has not commented very carefully upon my statement that the land drainage matters are currently subject to review by the inter-departmental committee, upon which Ministers intend shortly to publish a discussion paper. Will not the noble Lord therefore agree with me that it will be inappropriate to write this into the Bill, either at the Committee stage or at the next stage, before the matter can be considered by that review committee and a discussion paper published upon it?
The Earl of Onslow: I did hear that point and I believe it to be extremely important. I apologise to your Lordships for not having commented upon it. If we can get the satisfactory land drainage plan about which the noble Lord has spoken and if there is time to introduce legislation as a result, I would not wish to push this amendment into the Bill. That is not to say I do not believe that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and those of us who feel that there is a much stronger case to be made for much more careful scrutiny of land drainage schemes, are
140
valid. If, however, an inquiry is to take place, that would be a very good reason for not trying to push the amendment into the Bill—provided always that anything which comes out of the review results, if possible, in legislation.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I wonder if the noble Lord could say whether the land drainage findings will be published and made available before Report stage. Otherwise my noble friend will be in some difficulty, because at a later date there will have to be amending legislation, which for Back-Benchers is almost an impossibility. If therefore the noble Lord could say that at Report stage the Government will be able to say how the land drainage committees might be reorganised, it might help to solve the problem.
Lord Skelmersdale: The review began at the end of last year and it is impossible for me to be definitive as to when the discussion paper might be published. The review is not yet finished. The Report stage is due to take place I believe at about the beginning of April. I very much doubt whether the discussion paper will have been published by then. If, however, the Committee is beginning to be swayed by this part of my argument, the normal way of conducting these affairs would be to allow the inter-departmental committee to report, to have discussions on the document, to have proposals submitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and subsequently to legislate, if it is agreed so to do. That, I should have thought, would be the reasonable procedure to follow in this case.
Lord Melchett: I, too, apologise to the noble Lord for not dealing with this point when I spoke earlier. It is a serious one, although promised consultation documents arising from inter-departmental reviews which are not yet completed are fairly nebulous creatures at the best of times. In a year when an election is due and the Government are going to change, they become even more nebulous than in ordinary circumstances. Nevertheless, I take the noble Lord's point. If he is putting it forward as a serious reason, could he give us a little more information about why amendments to the Bill on land drainage matters should not be made at this stage by the Committee? It would be helpful, for example, if the noble Lord could say that the inter-departmental committee or review group are looking at the question of cost-benefit appraisals, that they are aware of the concern and that they have looked at the three or four points which I mentioned when I introduced the amendment about the way in which cost-benefit appraisals can be modified to meet particular rates of return.
Perhaps the noble Lord could say whether the Treasury are represented on the committee so that we know that a fairly keen eye is looking at this matter. If it should be a Ministry of Agriculture-Department of the Environment inter-departmental committee of some sort, it might not have quite the same sharpness of financial scrutiny applied to it as would otherwise be the case, although I accept that both departments will be governed by Ministers in the attitude which they take regarding public expenditure. It would be even more helpful—I hope the noble Lord does not feel that

141
I am pressing him too far, but it makes a great deal of difference as to whether or not the argument he is putting forward is relevant to the amendment—if he could say that he expects the consultation document which is to be issued to mention cost-benefit appraisals and to be made available either to the general public or at least to interested statutory bodies like the NCC and local authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord answers those questions, I wonder whether he would undertake to give consideration to the point which seems to arise from my noble friend's amendment and the Minister's reply: that many other parts of the Bill could be thought to prejudge the decision of the interdepartmental committee. I wonder therefore whether the noble Lord would undertake to go through the Bill with the usual fine toothcomb and come back to the House on Report and indicate what other parts of the Bill would be affected in this way and whether or not they ought to be withdrawn as well.
Lord Skelmersdale: I thought that I was going to start by being grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his acute observations, because I was going to make a rather different point: that Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 also have the same defence, although there are other specific defences which I shall make to those amendments, if they are moved. It is rather difficult to stand here and answer hypothetical questions from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about what may or may not be in a review which is being conducted at the moment. To suggest that the committee will have a sharp edge only if it has Treasury approval and has Treasury representatives upon it is going a little far. So often have I heard the noble Lord use exactly the opposite argument. However, I can assure him that even if they were not going to do so before today's debate, the interdepartmental committee will most certainly look at every word which has been said in this short debate on the subject of cost-benefit appraisals. What I cannot do is to prejudice the outcome of their investigation.
Lord Melchett: I do not want to prolong unnecessarily this debate, but subsequent amendments are to some extent affected by it and to deal with the matter now may speed up the process in the long run. Therefore, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer one other point, which troubles me at least. I do not know whether it troubles anyone else. If an inter-departmental committee is to take a disinterested look at the issue of cost-benefit appraisals and whether they should be published, why are the Government fighting tooth and nail to defend the existing practice while the committee is sitting? If they read the debate and what the noble Lord has said on behalf of the Government, will that not prejudice the officials who are conducting the review? The noble Lord said, first, that it is ridiculous to give it to the NCC, secondly, that these documents are full of confidential information and cannot be released, and, thirdly, that they are not important enough to justify release. The noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Government, has tried in every way to suggest that there is absolutely no case whatever for making them
142
public while an inter-departmental committee is meant to be looking at this in, I hope, an even-handed way.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I do not have quite the same respect for Governments as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, but I cannot see any good reason whatever why the inter-departmental committee should not examine my words just as they might examine his words or those of my noble friend Lord Onslow. With regard to his general point about the interdepartmental committee, I did not say it was a committee looking at cost-benefit appraisals. What I said was that the committee was looking at the whole field of land drainage and I would now make sure that it also looked at the cost-benefit appraisals.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to thank my noble friend for that answer. If we could all look at the consultative paper when it comes out, it would seem to me that after the next election—when presumably my noble friend will be sitting in exactly the same place—this will be a very suitable Bill which could start in your Lordships' House. There seems to be a certain amount of knowledge on the subject of land drainage. I think it would be seriously and constructively criticised by Members on both sides. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for putting down the amendment in both our names and for a very useful debate. I personally am satisfied with my noble friend's undertaking on the question of the interdepartmental report, the fact that it will read what has been said and will produce a consultative White Paper, and if legislation is needed it will flow from that consultative document.
Lord Melchett: I think that is a sensible course in the circumstances. I still have one worry and it may be the noble Lord can clear it up if I put it more precisely. He said that the people conducting the review will read his words as well as mine. He represents the Government; I do not. They are likely to place a great deal more weight on his words; indeed, he has simply repeated what Ministers in other places and in your Lordships' House have said on numerous occasions in the past. It would be useful to have an assurance that although the Government have defended the existing practice, as is the Government's wont, nevertheless they will approach anything that comes from the review with a completely open mind and will be prepared to consider recommendations, if the review makes them, for cost-benefit appraisals to be made more widely available. If the noble Lord can say yes to that, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure whether it will be the review or the subsequent consultation that will bring up the noble Lord's points, but I am convinced that by whatever method they will be looked at both objectively and fairly.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 19:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Power to hold inquiries 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: This amendment also affects questions of land drainage, and in fact more directly because it would amend the Land Drainage Act 1976. The amendment is very simple. It simply extends the power to call a public inquiry, which at the moment in land drainage matters rests solely with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under Section 96 of the Land Drainage Act, to the Secretary of State for the Environment, so that either the Minister or the Secretary of State is empowered to call a public inquiry about a land drainage scheme, should they wish to.
We have discussed earlier this afternoon the merits or otherwise of public inquiries, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in suggesting that they provided sufficient safeguards so far as conservation and water supplies and loss of agricultural land are concerned, said that at public inquiries all the issues can be considered in the open and the various points assessed. I agree with that; it was a good point on that amendment, and it was one of the reasons why I withdrew it. What this amendment is trying to do is to make sure that wherever there is a good case for a public inquiry, whether on agricultural or environmental grounds, the relevant Minister can call for one and derive the benefits which flow from public inquiries which the noble Lord himself mentioned earlier.
The concern which lies behind this is the feeling that the Ministry of Agriculture have taken at least a policy decision—it may be one that can be subsequently overturned by the inter-departmental committee or not—that public inquiries into land drainage issues are unnecessary and should be avoided. There has been only one public inquiry into a land drainage proposal since 1976, which was the one where the Southern Water Authority had a drainage scheme for Amberley Wildbrooks, which I mentioned, which was held in March 1978. In that case the inspector found against the proposals to conduct the drainage and the recommendation was endorsed by the Minister.
After that one failure to get a land drainage scheme through a public inquiry, there has not been one subsequently and Halvergate Marshes and the proposal for a land drainage scheme there was the subject of a long, bitter, acrimonious dispute which stretched over months and months, and must have become as wearisome to the Ministers involved in various departments as I am sure it was to the farmers whose land was affected; and it certainly was to those of us trying to take an intelligent interest in the progress being made from a conservation or landscape point of view. It seemed to me that at the end of the day it would have been much simpler, quicker and cheaper if we had had a public inquiry at the outset and the matter could have been determined by public debate one way or another.
It may be that the noble Lord will feel that this is
144
covered by the inter-departmental review and the need for public inquiries may be something which falls within their terms of reference. If he can confirm that they are looking at this, that will be helpful, but I hope he will also agree with me on this occasion, so that the officials can read views which coincide rather than disagree, that it would be a useful power for the Secretary of State to have. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must be in an unduly cynical frame of mind this evening. I hope the noble Lord will accept that, even if other parties do not, the Government speak with one voice at any one time. The decision to hold a public inquiry is made by a Minister on behalf of the entire Government. It is very difficult for me to see the practical advantage in increasing the number of Ministers involved. Government policy in regard to potential conflicts between the interests concerned with or likely to be affected by a land drainage scheme is to encourage maximum consultation between the different interests in order to secure a solution acceptable to all.
A public inquiry can be unhelpful to all the interests involved and is only considered if reconciliation proves difficult. The Minister takes all relevant factors into account in deciding whether to hold such a public inquiry, which in this case he is empowered to do under Section 96 of the Land Drainage Act 1976. He naturally consults his ministerial colleagues if necessary. There is nothing to be gained by extending the power in the manner proposed. However, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. As we now know at great length, we have an interdepartmental committee studying this and related issues, and I am sure that they will discuss this aspect as well.
Lord Stanely of Alderley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replies, I think I am correct—I am sure he will correct me if I am not—in saying that over Halvergate, which he mentioned, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State did consult together. The noble Lord nods, so I think again we are on the same net. If that is done, this amendment would have no relevance.
Lord Melchett: It would have no relevance if it was invariably the case that a Minister of Agriculture who received a request from the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry simply did it there and then, I agree; but anyone who has been involved either directly in Government or indirectly through reports in newspapers with rows between different Government departments and Ministers at various times knows perfectly well that life is not like that.
In any event, I am afraid that, while there was consultation on Halvergate, that was an area where a great deal of public attention was being focused on a large-scale scheme. There are other examples, and Sedgemoor is one, where there have been a number of land drainage schemes affecting a large area—18 capital works since 1977 which have been proposed for the area—all of which have been approved and grant-aided by the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know whether every one has been approved after consultation between the Minister and the Secretary of

145
State, but I very much doubt it. This is despite causing an extremely damaging impact on the wildlife of that area. There is a great deal of concern in the public mind about the impartiality with which the Ministry of Agriculture would look at such proposals and deem them worthy of public scrutiny.
The noble Lord said that the interdepartmental committee will look at this. I hope it can so redefine the criteria under which land drainage schemes are proposed in the first place that these conflicts will not arise and will not need to go to any sort of ministerial or public inquiry, because the schemes will be put forward only where they are really justified and in the general public interest. That would solve a great many problems and reduce public expenditure and the number of schemes that are likely to be put forward, if not to zero then very close to it. However, in the light of what the noble Lord said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 20:
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: Once again we are on the Land Drainage Act, and this amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint two people to the regional land drainage committees who have a special knowledge of wildlife or landscape conservation. It seems to me that this amendment raises a point much more directly concerned with changes made in the Bill. For that reason I do not think that it will be satisfactory for the noble Lord to say that the interdepartmental committee will consider this. In this Bill we are making major changes to the composition of regional water authorities. We are greatly reducing the number of elected representatives on the authorities and thereby greatly reducing the opportunities for public access to members of the authorities.
There is no doubt that access to a very large number of people—I agree, incidentally, that it is sometimes far too large on occasion—has been very useful in allowing people to question particular land drainage schemes which are of concern to them. It seems to me that with smaller, more secret authorities—if the noble Lord does not feel that is being unfair, but I think it is inevitable—which will be in charge in future it will be much more difficult for interested organisations and members of the public to put pressure via the authority on to their regional land drainage committees.
Given the changing composition of the regional water authority, it appears to me that the regional land drainage committees are likely, if anything, to have rather more power over land drainage matters than they do already. I think it is generally accepted that they are extremely influential, if not the determining factor, in making decisions on land drainage proposals. These committees vary in size between 13
146
and 20 members at the moment, and I hope that the suggestion that two members should be appointed with the specialist knowledge that I have mentioned will not seem unduly onerous to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, or to anyone else who might be concerned about a very small minority voice being heard.
I think it would be overdoing it to go into any detail about the extent of the interests which wildlife and landscape conservation bodies and members of the public interested in this subject have in land drainage matters. I think that is generally accepted on all sides of the Committee. What we are discussing is the best mechanism for seeing that that interest is taken into account by the regional water authorities—we will come to that later in, I think, my noble friend's Amendment No. 34—and, in the case of this amendment, by the regional land drainage committees. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that yet again I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the subject of this amendment. He must, I feel, be prepared to distinguish between two different things: one is the membership of the water authorities themselves and the second is the membership of the regional land drainage committees. They are two completely separate entities.
Incidentally, the noble Lord goaded me by suggesting that our attitude to water authorities will now be a lot more secretive. My answer, of course, is that we will be a lot less secretive in that we are setting up not only consumer consultative committees but also recreation and conservation committees. Subject to the will of the Committee we have now reconsidered the position of the local ombudsman on water authorities.
Water authorities and other drainage bodies, like the Minister, are already required to further the interests of conservation and they carry out extensive consultations with conservation and wildlife interests. The Minister is always concerned to take into account all relevant factors when assessing land drainage schemes for grant aid and seeks to ensure that all concerned have made their views known on any particular scheme and have had those views taken into account.
The amendment asks specifically for two members appointed by the Secretary of State on the regional land drainage committees to be persons with a special knowledge of wildlife and landscape conservation. In my view, this is not necessarily due to the general statute that the regional land drainage committees have to take account of conservation and wildlife interests, as I have said. Over and above that, I agree that it is a separate point, but this is also something which would come within the remit of the interdepartmental committee on land drainage.
Lord Winstanley: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain further the point he made about the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, confusing the new water authorites with the land drainage committees? It seems to me that the amendment is perfectly clear. It asks for these two people with special knowledge to be on the regional land drainage committee. I am wondering if by his words the noble Lord was

147
suggesting that we would have the remotest hope of getting two members with this specialised knowledge put on to the water authorities. I should have thought that that was a very vain hope indeed, but it appeared to be the suggestion behind the noble Lord's comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps we should not preempt the discussion on a subsequent amendment. What I meant was that the noble Lord announced his remarks by saying that we now come rather closer to the main purport of the Bill, or words to that effect. I was merely pointing out that I disagreed slightly with him.
Baroness White: I hope that the noble Lord will nevertheless think again about this matter, because those of us who have some experience of environmental questions in certain parts of the country are not always convinced that the land drainage authorities take full account of their obligations under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This is partly because of the composition of these particular bodies. It is an historical anomaly in many ways that in their relationship with the regional water authorities, as such, the water authorities really have no jurisdiction over what the land drainage committee does unless its activities in some way impinge upon the direct responsibilities of the water authority.
I know that that causes a good deal of concern to members of the water authority who happen to be interested in conservation, landscape or wildlife matters. I should have thought that to secure the representation on the drainage board of someone who had an interest in those questions would lead to a much more realistic discussion when they were taking their own decisions than can always be ensured as things are at the moment.
I do not want to delay the Committee, because I am quite sure that Members would like to resume and have their dinners. But this relationship between the water authorities and the land drainage boards is one which has caused considerable concern, and I am not at all surprised that my noble friend Lord Melchett has sought to make an amendment to the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I want before my noble friend replies just to put the record straight, although the noble Baroness, Lady White, I am sure will not believe me. But many farmers, believe it or not, think that the drainage committees bend over backwards against their interests and in favour of the conservation interests. It is not just on the one side. We also feel sometimes that they lean over backwards the other way. The other point that I would make, which was made by my noble friend on the Front Bench, is that the drainage committees are duty bound by statute to do that and presumably, if they offend against that statute, they can be taken to task.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, replies to my noble friend Lady White, may I just put another point to him? It is a question which arises out of what he and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said. If it is simply enough to have
148
a statutory duty to take account of a particular interest, why are there two members appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture on regional water authorities? Regional water authorities have statutory duties in regard to agriculture and fisheries, and yet agriculture and fisheries interests insist on a statutory obligation and upon the Minister appointing two people to those authorities. Really, it cannot be that people have it both ways.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wonder whether I may say just a very brief word here. As a civil engineer who has spent many years trying to build things, I have always found conservationists and people of that sort extremely tiresome. I say that with the kindest thought for my colleague, my noble friend Lord Melchett. But tiresome or not, they have a right to be heard and I grant them that entirely.
I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister has thought of this: if he follows the course of action proposed by my noble friend Lord Melchett he will find that these tiresome people will be properly heard in the machinery and will therefore be relieved of that sense of injustice which very often permeates their thinking and makes them even more tiresome than they would otherwise be. I am not saying that we should take the bite out of their teeth. That is not what I am saying at all. But these people should be properly heard; they should be heard out in the open and should have removed from them any sense of injustice under which they may labour. Then honest civil engineers such as myself could get on with making the country much better than it would otherwise be.
Lord Skelmersdale: I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that to him and his colleagues in the civil engineering field the conservationists are tiresome people, but without entering into an argument on the subject, perhaps he will accept that in the conservationists' eyes the boot is on the other foot.
Lord Howie of Troon: Not at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: Land drainage is one of the fundamental duties of the water authorities and conservtion is also a duty, but that is one, I am told, which is incidental to their functions. But I do very much take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I have absolutely no doubt that that will be considered at some stage during the consultation process to which we have already referred on numerous occasions.
Lord Melchett: I really have not been having much luck with the noble Lord today. I do not claim that that entitles me to any special privileges. But this is a simple amendment and it might even be one, if the noble Lord took it away and looked at it, which could be achieved by the Government giving an assurance or, after consultation with the water authorities, saying that when making appointments to regional land drainage committees those factors will be taken into account. It could be met without the need of an amendment. I really do think that it is a sensible point,

149
for the reasons which my noble friends Lady White and Lord Howie of Troon and others have put forward.
I know that it must be very difficult if somebody has said, "Do not accept anything on land drainage; there is a committee sitting. That is all you need say". The noble Lord is more intelligent than that, I am sure, and will listen to the arguments put forward. I just wonder whether he might be prepared on this one to take it back, consider it and perhaps explore whether it is something on which the Government are prepared to give an undertaking that at least it will be taken into account when appointments are made by others to these committees. If he would do that, I think that it would meet some quite genuine concern which, after all, will possibly exist for a very long time. We do not know when the interdepartmental committee will report, let alone when the legislation that flows from it, if it ever does, will reach the statute book.
Lord Skelmersdale: With such a tutor as my noble friend Lord Bellwin sitting beside me on this Bench, most certainly 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. 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.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that. I think that it would be very helpful if he could do that and perhaps in particular look at the suggestion that, if there is this veto—I will not say from where—which says, "No legislation on land drainage", it is something where a few kind words and good intentions might go a long way towards solving the problem. That might help the noble Lord; it will certainly help me and others who are concerned about this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 21:
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: This is a point which I think that we should and can take fairly quickly. As it would affect nature conservation bodies and the amount of tax in the form of drainage rates that they pay, I should declare an interest as someone involved in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other conservation
150
bodies, although I think that that is the one among those with which I am associated which will be most beneficially affected if the amendment is accepted by the noble Lord.
Wetlands are extremely important for wildlife. Many of them in this country are owned by nature conservation bodies, in particular, as I say, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In many cases, along with county naturalist trusts, it owns significant areas of wetland in the Ouse washes near where I live in Norfolk. The wetland is owned jointly by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildfowl Trust and the Cambridgeshire Naturalist Trust. That is a very good example. It is a huge area of wetland owned not entirely but very nearly exclusively by nature conservation interests.
The amendment will have the beneficial effect of directly assisting the owners of important nature reserves who are subject to land drainage charges. Only areas which are sites of special scientific interest and are managed as nature reserves would benefit, as these are, by their designation as SSSIs, recognised as being of national importance. The amendment would remove the owner's drainage charge which is levied to meet part of the cost of improvement works, the rest being covered by the Ministry of Agriculture. If that were removed, conservation bodies would no longer be asked to contribute financially to works which are inevitably damaging to the wildlife interests of the land that they own.
What is happening under the existing regime is that conservation organisations which own land as land owners are being asked to pay for work which has the effect of destroying the purpose for which they own the land. It is like a farmer who owns land which is about to be flooded for a reservoir being made to pay in large part for the reservoir at the same time. However keen anyone may be on reservoir building, and however unsympathetic to farmers for that matter, all of us would feel that that was going a bit too far.
The amendment would not reduce or introduce any exemption from the occupier's drainage rate which goes towards the cost of maintenance works. In other words, maintenance works will continue to be necessary whether or not the land is owned and managed as a nature reserve. The exemption is sought from the owner's drainage charge which covers the cost of improvement—that is, capital works. It goes without saying that nature reserves do not make a profit; and, in fact, to manage them properly requires a great deal of money being spent on them which is raised by public subscription by the bodies I have mentioned. Despite this, internal drainage boards levy the same capital drainage charges on areas managed as nature reserves as they do on highly profitable farmland. If the press reports from the Ministry of Agriculture are to be believed, somebody may have been making in the past year huge profits from farming land which is drained, and the owner's drainage charge—the capital levy—will be a relatively insignificant charge. But for a nature reserve which is already costing an organisation a great deal of money, to have to pay a capital improvement owner's charge as well really can be going over the top.
I reckon that the loss to drainage board funds as a result of the amendment will be of the order of

151
£30,000 a year. That will be the benefit to nature conservation organisations. It may not sound a great deal, but for very hard-pressed voluntary organisations—which are, particularly in time of economic recession, finding it very difficult to raise sufficient funds—it represents a real benefit. They have difficulties raising funds from the public simply to keep pace with inflation, let alone increase the expenditure which they are now being called upon to do as a result of, in part, the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the debates we have had on it, and the changes in the law that have flowed from it. As I have said, it may be a small sum to your Lordships and the Government, but it would nevertheless represent a real benefit to the organisations concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has just said that he has not had very much luck with me as regards his previous amendments. I must say that I am beginning to feel that I have an eel as my kinsman. Be that as it may, I am afraid that I must tell the noble Lord that in my view this particular amendment is rather akin to a house that is based on sand. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord—let us get that straight right away. This amendment seeks to provide an exemption from liability to some of the drainage rates which are levied in respect of land which has been designated as a nature reserve, and so on. The amendment as drafted probably does not meet the noble Lord's intention as it only provides exemption in respect of drainage rates which are made to meet the costs of new and improvement works. But even if that were not the case, I would have—
Lord Melchett: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but with respect that was exactly the case I was making. I was saying: okay, it is quite reasonable to pay drainage rates which meet maintenance costs, because maintenance will be needed however the land is managed and it is fair for conservation bodies to pay towards that. It is the capital improvement expenditure which sticks in the gullet, and the amendment is solely and deliberately aimed at that.
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I was not enunciating clearly—but in any case the noble Lord did not let me finish my sentence. I was saying that this amendment only provides an exemption in respect of the costs of new and improvement works. Even if that were not the case I would have reservations about the proposal.
The main reason why I oppose the adoption of this amendment is that all land within drainage districts which is below certain heights above sea level, and which thus derives benefit from the works carried out by the drainage board, has always been liable for drainage rates. No statutory exemptions have ever been made to this general rule. I do not consider that it would be right to begin now with land which has been designated as a nature reserve. However, in any case, since drainage rates are already calculated on the basis of the annual value of the land and property within a drainage district, reduced drainage rates will already be being paid in respect of such land which is being managed solely as a nature reserve. This is because the land which such reserves occupy will have
152
a much lower annual value than that which is used for farming or is in urban occupation.
In my view we have heard quite enough about the inter-departmental committee this evening, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is a basic reason why the amendment really is not appropriate.
Lord Melchett: No, I do not; and, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think that the amendment deserved a little more care and attention in responding to it than it has been given. First, the noble Lord implied that I drafted an amendment to attempt to achieve a complete exemption from rates and that I had failed to do so. However—as I said in introducing the amendment—I deliberately drafted it in a way so that it was intended simply to allow conservation bodies not to have to pay for capital improvement works which in effect destroyed the very reason for their owning the land in the first place. I was not suggesting that they or anybody else should be exempt from drainage rates which pay for maintenance works in an area which the noble Lord said everybody was liable to pay.
The noble Lord did not, with respect, deal at all with the argument—and I think this argument was based on absolutely solid foundations, whereas the noble Lord's argument was based on some pretty soggy sand—that it really is very unfair for an organisation which has bought land to manage in a certain way to have to pay capital charges which will go towards schemes which will destroy the land for the purpose for which it is holding it. The noble Lord did me an injustice in not dealing with that point.
Secondly he said, "Well, in any event it is no real problem because the annual rate charge will be based on the capital value of the land"—the noble Lord will correct me if I have it wrong—"and that will be lower because it is a nature reserve". With respect to the noble Lord, that is simply not true in a very large number of cases, particularly as regards wetland sites. In fact, it can be the case that land of scientific interest will actually be worth more in capital value than land of a similar agricultural quality which is not of scientific interest. That is because it is already clear that in some areas the capital value on the open market of such land reflects the fact that it may be eligible for compensation payments under the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
If the noble Lord cares to go and try to buy some land on West Sedgemore at the moment, he will see exactly what I mean. The capital value of that land on the open market is very high indeed. It is high because of the nature conservation interest and the likelihood that the people owning the land will be eligible for compensation payments. So in fact, if anything, the reverse is true of what the noble Lord said. Conservation bodies are not only having to pay to destroy their land, but they are having to pay more than a farmer nearby who is still able to farm the land profitably. If the noble Lord were to tell me that it would be possible to levy drainage rates on the basis of the income generated from the land, then that would be fine and would meet the point entirely—or, if not entirely, at least in part. But, so far as I understand it, that is not the case at present.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must say that I really cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that the land value is high necessarily because of the nature conservation interest. The noble Lord says, "Go to West Sedgemoor". The fact is that one simply cannot buy any large areas of West Sedgemoor because it is split up into very small areas often owned independently by absentee landlords and because the almost Napoleonic code has applied to that particular area of the country. I suggest to the noble Lord that the reason why land prices in West Sedgemoor are so high is that the individual plots of land are so small. It has nothing to do with conservation interests whatever. However, I accept that there is a problem here with which I have not been able to deal satisfactorily this evening; I readily concede that. I should like to take the matter away and look at it.
Lord Melchett: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that, but I think he is wrong about land values in West Sedgemoor and a number of other areas in the country. This is a sensitive issue for those concerned in both selling and buying the land, but I am sure that there are organisations that would be able, in confidence, to provide the noble Lord with some information. I know that, with his keenness on confidentiality in these matters, he would respect that, which would support what I have said.
The noble Lord has very generously said that he will look at this again. It was a narrow point at which I was aiming, and the aim may not have been as accurate as I intended. Amendments drafted by Back-Benchers never are, but in introducing it I did try to make it a little more precise. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to look at the point again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to break for dinner until 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill
7.31 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to give effect in United Kingdom law to certain requirements of the protocol amending the 1960 convention which created the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation and the Multilateral Agreement on Route Charges, both signed on 12th February 1981, and also to enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the protocol and agreement which were presented to Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as long ago as last October. Most of the provisions of the protocol and agreement can be implemented under existing legislation, and in particular under the Civil Aviation
154
(Eurocontrol) Act 1962, as amended, and now consolidated in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. If enacted, this Bill will amend and add new provisions to the 1982 Act.
In nearly 20 years of its existence the Eurocontrol Organisation has established an experimental centre at Bretigny in France, a training centre in Luxembourg and air traffic control centres at Karlsruhe, Shannon and Maastricht. A central route charges office has been set up in the headquarters building in Brussels which is responsible for billing the airlines and other airspace users for flights, by aircraft over two tonnes all up weight, in the airspace of states which have signed the Multilateral Agreement on Route Charges, and in the Oceanic Flight Information Region for which Portugal is responsible. Most of this work will continue.
The principal change made by the protocol is to transfer back to member states the formal responsibility for the provision of air navigation services above 25,000 feet. The original concept of the split functioning of the control of airspace, with national control at lower levels and Eurocontrol at the upper level, had been out-moded by the rapid development of the operation of jet aircraft in the short time between the convention being signed in 1960 and the organisation commencing its operations in 1963. This was particularly so for some of the members, including the United Kingdom, who were satisfied that with the changing pattern of both military and civil operations, resulting from advances in aircraft design, such a split would have been both uneconomic and inefficient. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom it had become clear that it was no longer possible to reconcile the split level concept with the joint civil and military air traffic control arrangements operated by our national air traffic services.
The arrangements for sharing capital costs, which it was found necessary to introduce once it had been agreed to raise charges for what we call en route air navigation facilities and services, were also very complex. Succeeding United Kingdom Administrations, therefore, pressed for amendments to the convention with the aim of reducing its complexity and removing anomalies. Agreement was finally reached with the other member states and the amending protocol resulted.
The new protocol will enable Eurocontrol to expand and strengthen its role as the focus for co-operation between member states in the future development of air navigation services in addition to continuing with tasks ranging from basic research and development to the training of controllers and engineers. Eurocontrol is still permitted to undertake any tasks which states might entrust to it, including the running of air traffic control centres. The future of the organisation is secure and it will play an important part in the co-ordination of air traffic control in Europe.
The new arrangements have been criticised because some people consider that existing ties are being loosened. However, I consider that we have gained flexibility as well as enabling Eurocontrol to respond to the differing requirements of member states. This should also make it easier for states who have held back until now to join the organisation. This would not have been the case if the alternative of the transfer of responsibility for the whole of national airspace to

155
Eurocontrol had been agreed. The enlarged bureaucracy with supra-national powers which would have resulted would have been costly in manpower and money and have no more expertise than is currently available within the Eurocontrol Organisation and the national administrations of member states.
Responsibility for the Shannon and Karlsruhe Air Traffic Centres will be transferred to the Republic of Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany respectively. Eurocontrol will continue to operate the Maastricht Centre but as an agent for Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The amending protocol has been signed by the current seven member states: Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Republic of Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and by Portugal who will become a full member when the protocol is ratified.
Associated with the amending protocol is a new Multilateral Agreement on Route Charges which has also been signed by Austria, Spain and Switzerland as well as the eight states who signed the protocol. This replaces the previous agreement which signified the intention to set up a common charging scheme and codifies the system for collecting charges for en route navigation facilities which resulted. It also strengthens the legal procedure whereby the states and Eurocontrol will assist each other in the collection of debts.
The amending protocol and the multilateral agreement were due to come into force on 1st March 1983, but this could only have occurred if all the signatory states had ratified by then. Somewhat naturally delays have occurred in most of the member states, but all expect to be able to ratify in the first half of 1983, with the possible exception of the Federal Republic of Germany where their parliamentary processes have been further delayed by their general election. Failure by the United Kingdom to ratify could lead to embarrassing criticism from our Eurocontrol partners in view of our leading role in the amendment of the convention.
The main effect of the Bill will be to enable the United Kingdom to play its part in the strengthening of the machinery for the enforcement of claims on behalf of Eurocontrol. There are four clauses in the Bill, the first three of which take the form of textual amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Clause 1 provides for the enforcement and recognition in the United Kingdom of judgments given in foreign courts and determinations by administrative tribunals in respect of route charges and air navigation services in accordance with the multilateral agreement.
Clause 2 makes alterations to the existing immunities and privileges of Eurocontrol. It updates the provision conferring inviolability on the archives and premises of Eurocontrol to correspond with the provisions in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968, and gives effect to new provisions concerning immunities and privileges contained in the Protocol. These cover the requirement of advance notice before entering its premises and inspecting its documents, and the
156
immunity of its property and assets. The clause also removes disputes between Eurocontrol and its personnel from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom to that of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation. In fact Eurocontrol has no premises, property or staff based in the United Kingdom and we do not envisage that there would be any in the future.
Clause 3 makes a textual amendment to the definition of the Eurocontrol Convention to make clear that it covers all amendments to the convention made with the agreement of the contracting parties. This is necessary because there is some legal doubt as to whether the wording of the definition in the 1982 Act covers amendments to the convention made prior to the passage of that Act. This is important since the protocol was signed in 1981. All future amendments made with the agreement of the contracting parties, not requiring changes in United Kingdom law, will also apply. The clause also confirms that charges may be imposed on owners of aircraft when operators cannot be traced. Clause 4 gives the title, commencement and extent of the powers of the Bill.
In conclusion, I would suggest to your Lordships that this Bill will enable the United Kingdom to play its full part in making Eurocontrol an efficient organisation to meet the needs of the community of civil aviation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having taken us through this Bill so clearly. As this is a Second Reading debate, I should like to speak probably more generally than he has, but of course dealing with the terms of the Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State brought the Civil Aviation (Eurocontrol) Bill before the Second Reading Committee of another place just before the House rose for the Christmas Recess. He said that it became clear almost as soon as the Eurocontrol organisation began its operations in 1963 that the system envisaged was not a satisfactory one from the point of view of some of the members, including the United Kingdom.
Just to take one problem, and without going into too much detail—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to it—it was soon realised that the split functioning of the control of United Kingdom airspace, with national control at lower levels and Eurocontrol at the upper level would have been uneconomic and inefficient. In addition, Mr. Sproat said that the suggested split functioning would have conflicted with our joint civil and military air traffic control arrangements through national air traffic services.
Going back to 1980 I remember one of the witnesses to the European Communities Committee on European Air Fares telling us that the agreement on Eurocontrol expired in 1983, and that there did not seem to be any firm policy about either the control or what should happen to it. He thought that surely member states must make up their minds as to what they wanted done with the European organisation. This they now seem to have done, and this is what we are discussing tonight.

157
However, various points are still being raised—and queried. IATA and the airlines believe that only if the air traffic control system were the responsibility of a single central authority would it be possible to claim a reduction in costs on its behalf. It is felt by some that nothing in the Bill prevents a continuing fragmentation of the European system. As I said in our debate in July 1980, I believe that the air traffic control is one area where we in this country lead Europe. I thought then, and think now, that it would be beneficial if we could take the initiative in the co-ordination of air traffic control in Europe.
Since that debate, and particularly during the last year, I have tried to find out more about air traffic control. The director and his colleagues of the National Air Traffic Services have been most helpful in trying to educate me, but I would not wish blame to attach to them for any mistaken statements that I may make. This is not an easy subject for the layman.
The Secretary of State also has been most helpful in an area concerned with this matter, and that is the one known as "dog-legging". This of course is another aspect of air traffic control. I think that the most simple example is to cite the actual distances flown between two points in Europe. This on average is 15 per cent. longer than need be. In the USA, one country with one administration, the tolerance is between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. In Europe it is 15 per cent.
Governments in Europe have drawn up the air routes which result in such deviation, and here we have two problems. First, there are those countries with national air traffic control organisations not fully co-operating with their opposite numbers. Secondly, there is national sovereignty, with the additional point that Eurocontrol of course is not comprised of members of the European Community. Some members of the European Community are members of Eurocontrol. One state which signed the amending protocol that we are discussing tonight is not a member of the European Community.
So, my Lords, I would submit that it is not really a European Parliamentary matter, and I accept that the Government—that this Government, in fact—are trying to be practical and to bring more practicality to matters of air traffic control. If I may go back to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and how he helped on "dog-legging", it was in October last that I asked him whether he could help on the detailed suggestions from IATA concerning 10 routes within the European Economic Community which suffered from considerable deviation in distance flown. On 27th January the Secretary of State told the House that agreement in principle had been reached at the meetings arranged by the European Air Navigation Planning Group on a number of route improvements—including changes to all 10 routes singled out by IATA.
So, although the airlines and, I think, IATA say that they would like a united authority, it is recognised by the Government that the members of Eurocontrol are not prepared, for various military reasons, among others, to hand over their control. For the moment I think that we have to accept this, but I should like to stress that it is "for the moment."
Charges have been complained about. We all know that charges are always a bone of contention, and I
158
think it is recognised by the Government that there could fruitfully be discussions on these and, of course, on those costs to which charges are said to be related. But I consider that we must accept that it is not possible to compare Europe with the USA. On some points such comparison is possible, but not here.
The difference between air traffic control charges levied by the United States and those levied by the members of Eurocontrol could hardly be bigger. As Mr. Sproat said, the United States does not levy any such charges, because it has decided to pay for air traffic control facilities by a different method. The United States pay through a tax on fuel, a tax on departing passengers, and out of general taxation.
One of my knowledgeable friends told me that there was no straightforward way of comparing the cost efficiency of different air traffic control centres in Europe—or in the USA. They all have different airspace structures, different traffic mixes, and different equipment.
I am wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will have something to say about debts still outstanding. This was referred to in debates in another place, and referred to particularly during the Committee stage there on 8th February. Not being an accountant, I felt that I would accept the statement given at column 12 on that date; namely, that the debts were, "Neither longstanding nor high". At the end of the 1981 calendar year the debts outstanding amounted to 1.4 per cent. To quote the Under-Secretary, this,
"figure was the amount of debt incurred in 1982 that had not been paid, plus debts that had been incurred earlier and had still not been paid".
I must comment, before leaving the question of costs, that there are some mistaken statements around. In the Economist of 15th January, I noted the statement that air traffic control amounted to some 14 per cent. of the total cost of air fares. That seemed an unduly large proportion and, on making inquiries, I was informed that in Europe air navigation charges on scheduled services accounted for about 4 per cent.—not 14 per cent.—of total operating cost, which of course is what dictates the price of the ticket. There is a wide difference between 4 per cent. and 14 per cent.
Obviously one cannot go into all the various aspects that have been raised, many of which require attention. But I must say that many times in the past year I received complaints about the cost of Eurocontrol and the salaries paid. I am not competent to pass judgment on those, but it seems to me better to work on bringing the various national organisations into closer co-operation in the first place, rather than trying to weld them into one organisation—against their will—with greatly enhanced costs.
Reverting to a point made at the beginning—that of airspace, to which the Minister referred—the Bill and the protocols transfer back to member states the formal responsibility for the provision of air navigation services above 25,000 feet. I believe, from discussions I have had with various people, that that may well mean that other states will join the organisation, and I think the creation of an enlarged bureaucracy has been avoided, and at this stage that is useful.

159
Eurocontrol is now pledged to play a key role in the development and operation of a European system of air traffic flow management, in collaboration with the International Civil Aviation Organisation. To take one example, I gather that much progress has been made by the United Kingdom and France working together to improve the route structures and general handling of civil air traffic. As a result, some cross-Channel air routes will benefit and route capacity will be improved. I support the Bill, with as much prodding as possible from our Government, from the National Air Traffic Services and from the Secretary of State for Trade.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House do not see fit to oppose the Bill, which in effect ratifies the protocols to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred. However, I have the strongest misgivings concerning the further fragmentation of the whole machinery of air traffic control in Europe. It is a matter which fills me with some dismay, and while my views on the subject will probably evoke no support from members of the Government or from members of my own party—or, for that matter, of any other party—I feel it my duty to present to the House the truth of the matter as I see it.
In March 1979, when I was president of the European Parliament's Committee on Regional and Transport Affairs, I had the honour of presiding at a large conference which took place in Paris to consider the whole question of air traffic control. It was a very long and, some said at the time, important conference. I did not have the advantage of the advice which my noble friend Lady Burton has evidently received from her own sources. But we at that conference had the benefit of the advice not only of the Commission of the EEC but of the Assembly of the Western European Union, representatives of the aircraft industry, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the International Civil Airports Association (ICAA), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations, the International Federation of Air Traffic Controllers' Associations, the Italian Military ATC authorities, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation represented by Air Vice-Marshal Tedder, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Union of European Communities.
The reason for the calling of that conference was that there was in the public mind throughout Europe grave anxiety about air safety particularly in the light of the tragedies at Zagreb and Tenerife. Great public alarm was around because of the tragedies that were involved in those, and the system of air traffic control was in both instances called severely into question. The name Eurocontrol carries with it possibly the connotation of being a bureaucratic organisation concerned with some kind of control. It is in fact short for the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation. Air traffic in Europe has been increasing rapidly, and at the conference we had in Paris some hair-raising information was given to us about the very precarious state of air safety generally which would
160
arise from the proliferation of traffic as well as from the system of aircraft control itself.
In this, one makes no reflection at all on air traffic controllers. Anybody who has been to an operations centre where air traffic control functions must realise the terrific strain that is placed on air traffic control personnel because the safety of thousands lies largely in their hands, outside those normal hazards that are within pilot control. One of the conclusions reached by that conference, and notified in due course to the European Parliament, was that the existence of a whole number of separate authorities, largely on national lines, for the handling of traffic across Europe, presented an inconvenience to passengers (in terms of extra time taken), extra strain to pilots and additional responsibility for air traffic controllers. Although I am not a technician in this field, perhaps I should explain that in a little more detail
If one goes by plane from a place in Sweden across to Spain, one may have to cross no fewer than 18 boundaries or sectors independently controlled by separate sets of air traffic controllers, often speaking with a different idiom and not always operating in accordance with standard instructions. It means frequent frequency changes by the pilot himself. It means handing over from one sector to another throughout, and there can always be scope for misunderstanding. That and many other things were proved at the conference to which I refer.
Moreover, the equipment at various airfields, in different air traffic control centres, varies considerably. Some pieces of equipment are much more efficient than others. Where there is a form of computerised control, as there is in one or two countries, the computers are not always compatible with those in other air traffic control centres, and therefore information is very difficult to pass.
IATA itself came to a conclusion which, in view of what the noble Baroness has already said, I should like to read to the House. It is contained in evidence given to the committee in Paris, on 19th March 1979. IATA's representative, Mr. Hammerskjöld, stated:
"Eurocontrol was, I believe, created directly as a result of the airlines' desire to have unified control of the upper European airspace. Now, 16 years after its creation, Eurocontrol has not been able to perform its basic function (of controlling air traffic) except in a very limited area over Belgium, Luxembourg, and part of the Federal Republic of Germany. This is no way the fault of the present or past Directors-General of Eurocontrol or its staff. The member states simply would not permit Eurocontrol to do its job, in spite of the clear mandate in its Convention".
Mr. Hammerskjöld went on to say:
"We would support and welcome a new Eurocontrol with expanded membership as an effective executive arm in planning and managing the air traffic system in Europe".
He continued:
"Europe does not require a technological breakthrough. The technology, the skills, the dedication are already here. Nor do we need a new organisational structure under the EEC to tackle this problem. What is lacking in Europe as a whole at the moment is the political will to develop and manage a fully co-ordinated air traffic system".
The steps that it is proposed to take under the protocol fragment the system even further. There is no case on the alleged difficulties arising from the duality of the civil air traffic controller and the controller of military traffic. If there is one thing the Eurocontrol

161
has proved, particularly in its operation at Maastricht—which I had the opportunity of visiting—it is that so far as West Germany, Holland, and Belgium are concerned, the arrangements work quite satisfactorily. There the military traffic controllers and the civil air traffic controllers sit side by side, and the arrangement has worked perfectly satisfactorily.
Moreover, the technical equipment at Maastricht is probably the most advanced in the world, complete with a back-up duplicated system in the case of breakdown. I saw it in operation. I watched the progress of flights right the way across the screen, from the time when they left the ground traffic control at their own airports, to the time when they landed at their destination. Do not let us underestimate the facilities that are available at Maastricht, for example, under Eurocontrol. There is an automatic operation in which a dangerous situation is indicated on the screens very many minutes before it actually arises. That is due to the feed-in from radar control of any variation in direction and speed, or height, which conflicts with the flight instructions and the flight plan originally communicated. On the screens one can actually see aircraft converging, or getting too near to one another, and the pilots can then be notified.
Eurocontrol has nothing to do with the EEC—nothing to do with it at all. It is for Europe as a whole, and it was warmly supported by the Council of Europe. That is what I had in mind when, about a year ago, possibly in more controversial fashion, I said that we should opt out of the EEC and back into Europe. Is it not ironic that in the one field where the establishment of a completely integrated international control is vitally necessary, not only for the reduction of costs, but above all for the safety of the air travelling public, those who are prepared to support the whole idea of a European Community growing closer and closer together all the time, should, in the one vital field where human safety is involved, decide to go back into their national shells? That may appear even more than ironic; it is almost inexplicable. Perhaps the reason for it is that there is no profit anywhere in air traffic control. It is essentially a service. I must say that when those Members of your Lordships' House who most devoutly support the EEC through thick and thin complain about the salaries paid to Eurocontrol personnel, I am filled with amazement. I say that because, if there is one international organisation which manifestly overpays and undertaxes its officials, it is the EEC itself.
The whole trouble with Eurocontrol is that it has no one, no body, to which it is directly politically reponsible. It has no parliamentary voice anywhere on an international scale. Only those in the various member countries that operate within systems of parliamentary democracy can raise a voice on its behalf. The result is that in some countries—not Germany, which has recently supported the extension of Eurocontrol—civil servants who know that their masters bear no political responsibility whatsoever and do not even understand the political implications, see fit to perpetuate what national Civil Service control remains within their hands. That applies, I regret to say, in the United Kingdom. In terms of the
162
programme "Yes, Minister", with which all your Lordships are quite familiar, I can imagine that the papers relating to Eurocontrol are relegated to the bottom of the fourth box, which a tired Minister probably does not reach until about two in the morning. As indeed IATA has pointed out, the trouble is that there is a lack of political will.
We on this side of the House cannot oppose the Bill. It was not opposed in another place. It received very perfunctory attention there. I sincerely hope that there will never be another air disaster on the lines of Zagreb or Tenerife. But if there is, and if there is very considerable loss of life, neither the families of the bereaved, nor the public will thank those who seek to diminish the effectiveness or to reduce the capacity of probably one of the best air traffic control organisations in the world which, but for the rather queer nationalism of member states supposedly believing in the great European ideal, would have become even more efficient than it now is. They will think, and I am sure that your Lordships will think, that, rather than reverting to narrow nationalistic lines, we ought to have sought with every means in our power to extend both the operational control and the administrative efficiency of one of the best organisations of its type in the world.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be very grateful for the very interesting and in no way perfunctory role which has been carried out by your Lordships in examining this Bill, and indeed, the amount of hard work and study and (as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would concede) the expertise of the noble Baroness in this particular field. I certainly am very grateful for the tone of the debate on this Bill this evening. I am very grateful for all the encomiums which have rained down, especially from the noble Baroness, upon the Director of the National Air Traffic Services and my honourable friend. I have been asked to stress that my honourable friend the Minister represents the United Kingdom on the Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol; so, clearly, my honourable friend will be grateful for the support that this Bill has gained from your Lordships this evening.
My honourable friend the Minister, I am sure, will once again be pleased to know of the apparent success of the noble Baroness's campaign in eliminating what she and your Lordships will have come to know as air dog legs. This has nothing to do with delightful animals but far more to do with safety and efficiency and, above all, fuel saving in civil aviation.
The noble Baroness drew our attention to the United States. I am sure that she, your Lordships and, indeed, my honourable friend in another place were able to suggest that the entire sea-air space and civil aviation air control in the United States is to certainly a very major extent different from Europe and, above all, from the areas which are covered or which might be dealt with by Eurocontrol. I am sure your Lordships will allow me to stress once again that the role of Eurocontrol and its organisation, as we hope it will be in future, will be to concentrate its efforts on increasing co-operation in such matters as research, development and training, and developing an air traffic flow management system in Europe and reviewing the

163
scope for performing air traffic control tasks on a joint basis. Thus we hope that it will be enabled to devote its resources to the task for which it was originally intended; that is, the co-ordination of air traffic services within all member states.
I think that your Lordships will bear with me if I stress the Government's feelings on Eurocontrol. We believe that the arguments for greater Europeanisation of air traffic management which would be implemented through a single executive authority (and in this case, it would be Eurocontrol) are primarily political and, indeed, sometimes emotive. Such a policy of unifying all air traffic control matters will not of itself solve the practical problems. Above all, I would stress that to the noble Lord who is a practical and indeed intellectual man himself; and I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree, too, that these are very serious practical problems of air traffic control in the air space of Europe which, as all of your Lordships will know, is especially congested.
We believe that there is nothing to support the view that an expensive supra-national authority would give a more effective service than that which is provided by the various national authorities. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to hand over the sovereignty of this House to the extent of disclaiming responsibility for the allocation of air space to the various interests who make use of it. We could not agree to hand over the responsibility of organising our national air space and, above all, the right to adjudicate between the rival claims on it.
This problem of Eurocontrol brings me to another aspect of the practical outlook of air traffic control; and that is what we would call the vertical fragmentation of air space. This is unavoidable because the alignment of what we call the flight information regions—and I see that in my preliminary remarks I referred to the oceanic flight information region which was administered by Portugal—with national boundaries may be inefficient; but there will always be a requirement for flight information regions and the existing patterns simply cannot be changed overnight even if there was the political will to do so. It might make some operational sense to abolish the Geneva and Zurich flight information regions, but I am sure your Lordships would accept that it would be difficult to persuade our Swiss friends (who are, of course, neutral) to hand over control of their air space to the great nations which surround them, namely, France, Germany and Italy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of course, had most interesting views, as he tends to have, and I happen to know that he has worked extremely hard on the Bill and on these particular matters. In the course of his remarks this evening he has shown great expertise and he took us back to the conference in which he was so deeply involved. It was clear that the conference he referred to made a forum for very valuable discussion. I was fascinated and wondered whether the noble Lord had indeed been on the flight deck of some civil aircraft on a holiday journey from Sweden to Spain, as it would clearly be covering all the various flight information regions. But, of course, the points and the difficulties that the noble Lord raised were quite correct and very valid. I would suggest that
164
Eurocontrol has not been entirely successful or as successful as we or others would have wished it to be because of the operational fallacy of splitting air space into upper and lower air space and putting them under different authorities.
The noble Lord mentioned the case of Maastricht. We believe that it does work in the special geographical circumstances. Indeed, we could possibly (if any of your Lordships wished) to take this up afterwards and examine the excellent Times Atlas of the World in the Library. Anybody who consulted the geographical location of Maastricht would see that the geography of the national boundaries forms and interesting jigsaw at that point. We would agree that Maastricht works in its role as far as that is concerned and we believe it is efficient in the role that it performs.
The basic unit of air traffic control is the sector, which is controlled by one or a team of controllers. These will be grouped in centres. It is our opinion that there is no feasible method of co-ordinating traffic other than on this sectoral basis. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the Zagreb and Tenerife disasters, which were appalling and gained headlines around the world. But I think that even he would agree that these would not and could not be attributed to any basic defect in the air traffic control system. We believe that these were due to human error which unfortunately is not completely eradicable.
I hope that I have covered the points raised. I have been most grateful for the expressions of gratitude and the expressions of approval which have emanated from your Lordships this evening. As your Lordships will have noted, it is a complicated Bill but we hope it will achieve what we intend it to achieve. I hope that without further ado I may move that it be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.20 until 8.30 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Overseas activities of water authorities and statutory water companies]:
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("assistance") to ("skill") in line 35 and insert ("in respect of matters relating to manpower training and operation within their").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 22 I shall try to encourage your Lordships and particularly the Government to consider—indeed, even after dinner to face—the stark commercial realities of international trade in very large overseas schemes and

165
projects relating to water supply, drainage and sewerage—
Lord Skelmersdale: At the risk of putting the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, totally off his stride, would it be convenient to the Committee to take the subsequent two amendments with this amendment?
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for clarifying that situation; but at the present time I would rather address myself to this one amendment first of all. If they are muddled up I shall lose the impact that I wish to make in relation to the amendment.
The amendment is intended to safeguard the huge overseas business built up over the years with such outstanding success by our United Kingdom consultants and contractors. It is an amendment which is directed towards avoiding the potentially serious damage to that overseas trade of the United Kingdom at present dealing with projects costing thousands of millions of pounds each year.
This great overseas United Kingdom industry and the high reputation of United Kingdom consultants are likely to be put at risk if the present terms of Clause 5 are allowed to stand as they are. Indeed, quite simply Clause 5 in its present form could result in a loss of international reputation of United Kingdom consultants in this field and lead to huge losses in the overseas income to the United Kingdom, seriously affecting our balance of payments.
Clause 5(1) has been put in by the Government, if I may say so somewhat naïvely, so as to enable water authorities and water companies to give advice, and to encourage them to give advice or assistance, to overseas customers in respect of any matter in which, so the clause states,
"they have skill or experience".
It is necessary to consider the scope, skill, and experience of the water authorities and companies. It has always been recognised worldwide that the public sector—that is, the water authorities and the water companies—has a unique experience and expertise in the field of the operation of works, their management and manpower training. That is unchallenged. However, the experience of water companies and authorities does not so far extend to overseas activities, except in a minimal way. I shall be supporting that statement by drawing your Lordships' attention to what was said in another place in this connection.
Perhaps it may not be inappropriate to say that I have had the honour of being a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which studied, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, the distribution of water and sewerage schemes in this country. We found in visiting these places that, as the Minister in the other place indicated, their expertise in overseas activities was minimal and almost negligible compared with that of the private consultants.
It is accepted that the private sector consultant firms have established a worldwide reputation for the United Kingdom industry in the specialised field of engineering studies, design feasibility studies and contract supervision associated with these big schemes
166
for water supply and sewerage. As I have said, water authorities do not at present have a great deal of experience in these matters overseas.
May I give examples of the extent of this huge business? I am advised, particularly by Professor Isaacs, the distinguished engineer who acted as the specialist adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee to which I have just referred, that in 1981–82, United Kingdom consultants brought in fees of the order of £500 million in that year. United Kingdom consultants over a period of five years were responsible for capital work of £10,000 million. These works have an average life of about five years, so that overseas business involved something of the order of £2,000 million per year linked up with the tremendous reputation which British consultants now have.
I have in my hand the volume for 1982 issued by the Association of Consulting Engineers about its overseas work. I turn, if I may for a moment, to the section dealing with water supply and I look at one page. There I see the estimated costs in sterling with which the United Kingdom consultants and contractors have been concerned. If I run down the list the figures show £16 million, £25 million, £28 million and £70 million. I turn to the next page and there it refers to projects costing £16 million, £10 million, £12 million, and so on. On the next page it refers to projects costing £450 million, £250 million and £350 million. This is a huge business and the reputation of the United Kingdom consultants is worldwide and of a very high order.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to what was said in the other place on 9th December. The Minister, Giles Shaw, stated:
"The present activities of the water authorities are really of very small cash value".
He then went on to cite specific projects and referred to the largest one:
"None of those activities is greater in value than £100,000". Thus the right honourable gentleman and the Committee can see that most of the activities that have been undertaken are of a relatively small amount in value and they provide important contacts largely of a managerial or advisory nature in the various territories. The other activities being conducted by the international advisory service are of a much greater value. This involves providing training or management expertise in various countries overseas, the majority of them being in the third world and they have been involved in a range of projects to the value of some £2,200 million".
I hope I have those figures right. But it is a vast order of about £2.000 million per annum, and that was verified by the Minister in the other place.
This vast amount of business is undertaken by United Kingdom consultants in a highly competitive and sensitive international area. There is real anxiety among consultants that Clause 5, as it stands, may result in serious damage and loss of business to British industry. It is quite simple to see why that loss of reputation might take place. What I am saying now is in no way to denigrate the British public sector in their activities. They are the experts in relation to training and the operation of their works, but if they have not got this experience in overseas trade damage is obviously likely to be done to the reputation of present United Kingdom consultants in the business.
I should mention that Clause 5(2) contains, so it says, certain safeguards in allowing water companies and water authorities to deal with overseas business in

167
this general way. This clause says that the power to do this business overseas shall only be done—
"with the consent in writing of the Secretary of State".
It goes on to say that the approval of the Treasury is needed. Your Lordships can imagine how difficult it would be to get the Treasury to accept responsibility for projects of the order of these hundreds of millions of pounds to which I have referred.
We have heard that the Minister proposes to issue some guidelines, and indeed he has issued them and I have seen some of them; but they are wholly inadequate, and if they are to be introduced they should be introduced into the text of the Bill in order that proper safeguards may be obtained. Of course, private industry and the United Kingdom consultants are always anxious to co-operate wherever possible with the public sector. I pause here, because I notice that the Government Front Bench is at present vacated. I feel that this is such an important matter that I am pleased to see it now does claim the attention of at least one member of the Government Front Bench. Of course, private industry is most anxious to co-operate wherever possible with the public sector and it is recognised that foreign Governments may wish to deal with British Governments directly; but I understand that government-to-government projects in this field do arise, though only on a small scale, and that in most of those cases the private sector is usually brought into discussions.
On another important aspect of overseas business in which water authorities and water companies have no experience, consulting engineers have to be particularly well qualified to prepare documentation of performance contracts, to analyse and compare tenders and to supervise their execution. British consultants have been involved in a large range of contract types. They are being exposed over the year to a variety of environments and the different levels of technology which are appropriate. Skills and long experience, therefore, are essential in a competitive technological and contractual environment of overseas business of this kind, where water and sewage developments can be so vital to a foreign community.
I apologise for making such a long speech, but I hope the Government realise the importance of these matters and will perhaps agree that in respect of overseas business at the present time Clause 5 goes too far. I well recognise that where public money has been expended for the purposes of research it is not in the public interest that all that expertise which has been developed at public expense should be locked up in Government departments. Subject to the usual safeguards, the Ministry of Defence, for instance, have a great amount of expertise which they disclose to the industry. Therefore in principle it is a good thing, where public money is being expended on extensive research, that such research and such experience should be made available wherever possible to the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said during the first day of this Committee stage, very little research in relation to overseas business is being done by the water authorities or the water companies; so in regard to the water companies we are not in the position that within them is locked up vast experience
168
in relation to overseas activities of the kind with which the consultants are concerned.
I emphasise again that so far as manpower training is concerned, and the operation of works, the public sector has this great expertise and it is not matched by that in the private sector. Therefore, I beg to move that there should be inserted in Clause 5 the limitation that, in their assistance and advice to overseas customers, the water companies and water authorities should at present be limited to matters relating to manpower training and operation within their experience and skill. I beg to move.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: As someone who has spent 20 years of his life in consulting engineering before degenerating into being a publisher of a civil engineering magazine, I am basking in the warm praise which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has bestowed on my profession—every bit of it absolutely deserved. British consulting engineers are quite clearly, beyond peradventure, the best in the world and the noble Lord has indicated just why we should regard them as such.
There was, however, one thing he did not say. When he spoke of the immense contribution which consulting engineers have made to our overseas earnings, he did not actually say that it was made by a relatively small number of firms and by a relatively small number of people—perhaps about 150. It is a very small group and the per capita overseas earnings among consulting engineers must be very nearly as high as in any other group in the country. I think that the praise which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, bestowed on consulting engineers is very well earned, and I am delighted to thank him for it on the strength of the 20 years or so that I spent in that profession.
I noticed at one point that the strength of his argument was so vigorous that the Front Bench opposite was entirely vacated. I was not quite sure what that meant in terms of the conventions or rules of order of this Chamber, but I did wonder for a moment whether it would have been appropriate for us on this side to cross the Floor and, by a coup, seize power! But we were not quick enough and the Minister in charge returned to his post in time to prevent such an eventuality. However, I think it was a chance not only for us but for the country as a whole that was missed.
Nonetheless, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has actually claimed too much in his amendment here. I support very strongly the sentiments which lie behind the amendment and I think I support entirely what I believe to be his ultimate intention; but I have to say that the British Consultants' Bureau already has in its membership something like 15 or 20 nationalised industries functioning as quasi-consultants. They include obvious people such as the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, British Rail and numerous others, all of whom apply the civil engineering expertise which they have in their organisations as quasi, not-quite-nationalised consultants. They do so within the rules and with, at least, the partial blessing of their fellow members of the British Consultants' Bureau.

169
I see no reason why water authorities should not be in exactly the same position as these others who already exist. My reason for saying that is that the engineering side of all these organisations, no matter how narrow their specialisation appears to be in the water industry, is manned by people who were educated and trained in the total range of civil engineering. They can turn their hand to just about anything that comes their way. That is the real key and that is the real worry. I do not think it would be right if the water authorities', or other national authorities', engineering departments turned their minds or their hands to anything that came their way. However, I think it is right that the maximum use of that engineering expertise and resource should be made in the national interest, and it already is in the 15 or 20 cases which I have mentioned.
Where the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, got it right was when he talked about the guidelines. It is important that the private consulting profession should feel that they are not open to unfair competition from a nationalised consultant, and that guidelines should be drawn to protect them. That has already been done in the case of the other nationalised industries which I have mentioned, and there is no reason at all why it should not be done in this case, too.
I very strongly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, when he said that the guidelines should be in the text of the Bill. Generally speaking, they are not in the text of the other legislation which guides the fortunes of the other nationalised consultants, if I may call them that, though that is not quite what they are. They are guidelines which are separate from the legislation. I should always like to have guidelines of that sort in legislation. I must admit that I was very tempted to put down a set of guidelines in Clause 5. That would have taken 30 or 40 pages of the Marshalled List so I did not do so, but I might be inclined to do so at Report stage.
This is a case where both the Government are right in the intention of their legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is right in what he interprets their legislation to mean. The key to the whole thing is in the guidelines. We will reach very speedy agreement here, if the Government will undertake to look at the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and consider whether or not the guidelines themselves can be incorporated at a later stage as a schedule to the Bill. That would clear everybody's mind and would reach, very speedily, the maximum agreement on both sides of the House. Not only that, it would reach agreement with the consulting engineering profession which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has rightly said, is one of our major export earners.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may just intervene very briefly, before my noble friend replies. We have been discussing the assistance and advice which the water authorities can give overseas by way of large scale commercial contracts. But I mentioned on Second Reading that there is considerable scope for them to give assistance overseas to much smaller scale projects by way of a charitable and voluntary effort. That is an issue which I wanted to raise when we discussed Clause 5; but, in view of the lateness of the hour and the considerable amount of work that we still
170
have to do, I prefer to give notice that it is a matter which I should like to raise when we get to this clause at Report stage.
Lord Skelmersdale: As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said, the question raised by Amendment No. 22 was fully debated in Standing Committee on the Bill in another place on an amendment which, he did not say, was identical in phraseology to the one moved by the noble Lord today. He referred to the Official Report of the Committee stage. In responding to the debate on that occasion, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State pointed out the very substantial opportunities which are opening up for British exporters in the water field, and emphasised the importance which we, as a Government, attach to a combined approach by the private sector and the public sector.
Water authorities and water companies have operational, management and technical expertise which is in demand in developing countries. Meeting this demand can draw in British firms, which can also use this expertise to strengthen and complement their bids for overseas business. The aim is to win a larger share of the export market. The noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and Lord Howie of Troon, have both said how large the business is already. The Government are fully cognisant of this fact, but accept, too, that the scope for expansion is still very large indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to a relatively small number of firms. Incidentally, there is a rather grey area in this respect between the public and the private sectors. I was interested to see, when I was in Costa Rica the other day, that the Common-wealth Development Corporation was one of them, in that it was financing and operating water work, through a consulting engineer, for the capital there. We of course accept—
Lord Howie of Troon: Surely, it is not a grey area at all. Those in private consulting know where they are, and those in the public sector know where they are. Sometimes they work in harmony and that is delightful, but there is nothing grey about it.
Lord Skelmersdale: What I was trying to point out was that, although in certain respects, the Common-wealth Development Corporation is well within the public sector, and of course comes within the remit of the public sector borrowing requirement, the activity in which it is engaged in Costa Rica has a very private face.
We accept that the phrase in the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has taken obvious exception, and which will enable the provision of
"advice or assistance, including training facilities, as respects any matter in which they have skill or experience"
might be considered to mean that water authorities could become competitors of the private sector, and we recognise that this is a worry. That is why we have made it clear to the water authorities that the private sector must remain the overall leader in this field, although there should be a partnership; as indeed there is at the moment. Clause 5 will as we have heard,

171
require the consent in writing of the Secretary of State before the water authorities or companies will be able to avail themselves of their new powers.
The debate has centred on the guidelines, which were published the week before last. These have been produced to give clear advice as to the basis on which that consent will first be given and secondly operated. They include a commitment to protect the private sector from unfair competition. This will ensure that the Government's intentions are respected, without writing unnecessary restrictions into legislation; restrictions which might very well prevent water authorities from offering help which consultants would like them to offer.
In short, we recognise the concern which has been expressed by noble Lords and the consultants themselves. We agree that the water authorities and the companies should not become competitors of the private sector; and, indeed, they have no intention of so doing. We see co-operation between public and private sectors as the key in all this, and we have ensured that this is to be the approach through the guidelines on the way in which the Secretary of State will grant consents that we have issued. For those members of the Committee who do not have them, copies of the guidelines are available in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred to the general point of putting guidelines into legislation. I agree that on the face of it this might be considered to be a very desirable objective, although other nationalised industry guidelines, where appropriate, were not put into primary legislation, for one very good reason: that once they are put into primary legislation they are fixed; it is impossible to change them without changing the primary legislation. In a situation which is developing as we go along, as I hope this very close relationship betweeen the private and the public sector is and will be, it would be a mistake to have fixed guidelines. It would be sensible to have them in such a form that they can be amended.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am not at all convinced by the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, although I am grateful for them, because he dealt precisely with what I said. I am a little alarmed by the fact that in the case of a good deal of legislation—employment legislation is a very good example—we have legislation and codes of practice which are not binding. The same applies in this case. The legislation is binding and the guidelines are not, although the guidelines are useful and agreeable. I wonder whether it would be terrible if we had to amend legislation from time to time. If we were amending legislation in the way the noble Lord the Minister seems to have in mind—that is changing the guidelines when they were incorporated in legislation—we should be dealing with one-clause Bills. They would take up about a minute of the time of this House. Even if we were hard-pressed, we could surely spare a minute for Bills of that kind. It would be neither impossible nor difficult. Indeed, the result would be much more important. It would give reassurance to those people who are affected. Surely that is one of the reasonable purposes for which
172
legislation is passed. The guidelines are valuable, but if the guidelines were in the legislation they would be even more valuable. That must be desirable. If to change them from time to time—I cannot believe that it would happen very often—were a burden, it would be a burden which would be placed upon us, not upon somebody else, and once in a while it would not do us a great deal of harm to have to do a little extra work.
Lord Winstanley: I am not at all sure about my noble friend's intentions with regard to the amendment. I wish to say that I support very fully what my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran has said. This is a matter which concerns me, as it concerns noble Lords in all parties who spoke at Second Reading on Clause 5 and who have spoken on it at other times. Having listened to the reply of the noble Lord, my difficulty is that I find that the second half of his speech is in direct conflict with the first half. The first half seemed to be totally without sympathy for the arguments advanced by my noble friend, but when the noble Lord reached the second half of his answer he sounded very much more amenable and understanding. I shall want to look very carefully at his speech to find out whether I can see on which side of the fence he comes down.
The noble Lord concluded his remarks by referring to the guidelines. I have not studied the matter with the care my noble friend has devoted to it. However, I looked through the reports of the proceedings in another place and saw that the matter arose there at Report. The Minister who replied to the debate made much of the question of the guidelines being an answer to the point which had been raised. It seemed to me that the Minister accepted the force of the argument behind the amendment but felt that the situation was probably best met by the guidelines. It appeared to me that a moment ago the noble Lord repeated that view and asked, "Why write that into the legislation? Surely it is better just to have guidelines, bearing in mind that they relate to the circumstances in which the Minister will give or will withhold consent". This is rather different from the purely advisory guidelines to which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, referred.
I am not sure how much comfort I derived from listening to the noble Lord's justification for urging us to rely upon the guidelines. He said that the difference with guidelines as against writing this into the legislation is that we can change them whenever we feel like it. The Government prefer guidelines because they are not fixed; therefore if they are not suitable we can alter them. I should feel happier about the guidelines if they were not subject to alteration behind the scenes, as it were, without warning and without further debate.
I make these few remarks in order to give my noble friend time to think about what he is going to do and to express the hope that whatever he does do will enable us to return in a practical and productive sense to this point at another stage of the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is in danger of putting the cart before the horse, because he has reversed the argument I was trying to make. This was not that one should be suspicious of the guidelines because they are not

173
embodied in legislation but rather the opposite: that if they were embodied in legislation one would find it extremely difficult to alter them. Were there general agreement, I am not suggesting that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would do a one-man alteration at the flick of a pen to guidelines which had become well established. This is not the intention and to my knowledge has never occurred with any set of non-statutory guidelines.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that it would be very easy to find the odd minute here or there in one House or the other to amend statutory legislation by means of a one-clause Bill. After slightly over two years in this job I am beginning to understand that it is not so easy as the noble Lord would have us believe. There are all sorts of constraints on the legislative timetable. Three Cabinet committees are sitting permanently on various aspects of legislation, to say nothing of other discussions which go on all the time. It may well be that the consensus of opinion is that that one minute—which, incidentally, we have noticed this evening can very quickly turn into a hundred—is prevented by what is generally regarded as more important legislation. So, with the greatest respect, I am afraid that particular piece of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, does not hold water.
Similar guidelines were issued in relation to the British Airports Authority when legislation on that body was recently being enacted. As I have said, the difficulty of putting them into the legislation is the inflexibility of that course. As the noble Lord himself said, the guidelines would have taken 20 or 30 pages of the Marshalled List. In fact these are somewhat shorter, so they would not have taken quite that much. It is axiomatic that they would have taken that amount of space in the final Act, assuming that it gets the Royal Assent. It would, therefore, be difficult at best, impossible at worst, to introduce new limits, if that were necessary. In spite of the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, over what I actually said and the marrying of my three different points together, I can assure him that I have taken this point very firmly on board and the guidelines do reflect it.
Lord Howie of Troon: Having spent several years in the Whips Office in another place, I do not really think the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, should teach his grandmother how to suck eggs, as it were.
Lord Skelmersdale: If the noble Lord will give way, I said I was beginning to understand. I did not say I had anything like the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.
Lord Howie of Troon: So I noticed, and I really think that will not do. If the Government wish to find a minute here or there, they certainly can. The noble Lord is quite right; a minute on the Order Paper sometimes turns into ten or twenty. But we do sit something like eight months out of the year, and out of the other four months they could find the half-hour needed for this. That is not really the point. The point lay in my reference to the reassurance to a particularly useful body of people, big earners of overseas incomes, almost the biggest per capita there are—they might
174
well be the biggest, I am not quite sure. For that kind of reassurance we as legislators can spare the odd half-hour or half-day, even if it means, as has sometimes happened in my recollection, that the House sits as late as 12th August.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Like my noble friend Lord Winstanley, I was somewhat confused by the initial speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in reply to my opening speech. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a couple of questions in order to try to clarify the position. I am very grateful to him for the care he has taken in replying. He did refer to a combined approach between the public sector and the private sector, and he referred to what the Minister in the other place said—that they did not want to have competition between the public and private sectors but there were opportunities for them to combine together in relation to overseas business.
Do I understand that the Minister is really saying that there should be a specific requirement that the water authorities and the water companies, when operating outside the fields of manpower training and operations in which they have very special skills and expertise, should undertake the other aspects of overseas work jointly with the private sector; in other words, that there should be no schemes or projects undertaken by the water companies and water authorities, outside manpower training and operations work in which they have these special skills, without the support of the consultants? I am not sure I quite understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I believe that was the tenor of his speech.
With regard to guidelines, the consulting engineers in this big business industry are mistrustful of guidelines in any form and would infinitely prefer to have the safeguards included in the legislation itself. I am not going to press this matter any further in relation to guidelines, particularly having regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has said, but I should like to have an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about this specific requirement, as I understood him to say, that bodies in the public sector should always combine with the private sector, with private consultants, when dealing with business outside manpower training and operations in which the public sector has such skills.
Lord Skelmersdale: If we look at the guidelines and indeed Clause 5 of the Bill—which I have temporarily mislaid, but I think I remember it correctly—the Secretary of State has to give his consent before the public sector is allowed to do anything in connection with Clause 5. What my honourable friend said the other day in another place, and what I am saying now, is that, in cases of danger of competition between the public and private sectors, this is something he would have very much in mind, and he would see the public sector as being an adjunct to and not a competitor of the private sector. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord mentioned the guidelines associated with the overseas activities of the British Airports Authority. There, as the noble Lord knows, the authority is instructed to arrange its

175
overseas business so as to gain an improvement in the total facilities which consultants, contractors and suppliers in the private and public sectors together are able to offer for overseas project work. In the particular guidelines to which the noble Lord referred, it is laid down—and I am reading from those guidelines—that,
"There shall be the two private and public sectors working together in relation to a particular project".
Is that the kind of guideline which he thinks should be included?
Lord Skelmersdale: That is the sort of thing which will be going through the Secretary of State's mind. What I will have to take advice on, if I may write to the noble Lord, is whether it ought to be specifically written down.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wonder whether the noble Lord will write to me as well. I am a terrible reader.
Lord Skelmersdale: Most certainly.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: In view of the late hour I do not think I should press this matter further. I understand from what the noble Lord said that the guidelines are still in draft form and that nothing has yet been finalised. May I ask whether that is the position?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that I was not sure whether the points raised by the noble Lord would be more appropriate to be in the mind of the Secretary of State or in the guidelines, and that I will take advice, which is very different.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is there any way in which we can get them out of the mind of the Secretary of State and into the guidelines?
Lord Skelmersdale: That remains to be seen. It is exactly what we aim to discover.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I think that the noble Lord and myself are at cross purposes. I was asking whether the guidelines have been finalised, whether the Government will consider representations in relation to them, or whether the Secretary of State has finalised the guidelines?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, until this evening we did consider the guidelines as final, but after today's short debate I will, of course, consider whether they are totally final.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. In view of that assurance that the matters raised during this short debate will be considered, all that remains for me is to thank those who have supported me in regard to this important matter. I will reconsider what the noble Lord has said and also the guidelines, which I have not yet fully studied, and reserve the right to come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("; and for the purposes of this section, statutory water companies shall have the same powers as water authorities have by virtue of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1973.").
The noble Lord said: In another place it was put to us that the statutory water companies had no powers to form subsidiary companies and that without such powers there was a risk to their customers of their being involved in overseas work.
When this matter came up the Government spokesman, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, commented that it was not clear to us that the water companies in fact lacked the powers in question. We have, however, looked further into this matter and are now satisfied that the point which was being put to us is valid; namely, that the water companies do not have powers to create subsidiary companies.
In our view it is important that they should have these powers in order to minimise the risks to their customers. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to provide those powers in respect of export activities only. The effect of it is that the water companies in relation to their overseas activities shall have the power, and I quote:
"to do anything (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which in the opinion of the company is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions".
This confers on the companies in relation to export work precisely the same powers as the water authorities now have. It embraces the power to form subsidiaries. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) In the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) above a water authority or statutory water company shall—

(a) keep and publish separate accounts to show that in respect of overseas work and taking one year with another their income exceeds their total outgoings by an amount sufficient to meet the financial targets set for their business as a whole, and report to the Secretary of State any loss likely to be incurred as soon as it becomes apparent;

(b) take out relevant insurances and enter into such bonds as are necessaary;

(c) in cases involving feasibility studies, design work or contract supervision as distinct from manpower, training and operations act in association with a firm in the private sector so as to gain an improvement in the total facilities which consultants, contractors and suppliers in the private and public sectors together are able to offer for overseas project work.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns three aspects of the powers which should be introduced into the Bill in order to limit the activities of the water authority. In view of what the Minister has said about the issue of guidelines, I do not think that I would wish to press this amendment at the present

177
stage or to talk about it at any great length. Therefore I do not propose to move this amendment at this stage.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: On Clause Stand Part I will not keep the House very much longer, but I have listened with great interest to what the noble Lord has been saying. At Report stage will he outline to the Committee the activity which is expected from the International Advisory Company Limited, which was made mention of in the other House during the course of Committee B? The main arm of the National Water Council, which had been doing all this work under the guise of the International Advisory Service, has now been formed into the International Advisory Company Limited. I just ask the noble Lord whether on Report he can perhaps bear that in mind.
Lord Skelmersdale: Most certainly. I am not quite sure whether it is an appropriate subject for Report, because of course an amendment would need to be moved to do it, but I shall certainly find out about this and at the very least write to the noble Baroness. Perhaps it may be appropriate to put it in Hansard in one form or another, but perhaps we can liaise afterwards on that one.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Arrangements for carrying out sewerage functions]:
Baroness White Baroness White moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("functions") to end of line 13 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (1), for "Subject to subsection (6) below, it shall be the duty of a water authority and every relevant authority whose area is wholly or partly situated in the water authority's area to endeavour to" there is substituted "A water authority and every relevant authority whose area is wholly or partly situated in the water authority's area may";

(b) in subsection (2), line 1, for "shall" there is substituted "may";

(c) for subsections (4) to (7) there is substituted:

"(7A) The parties to any arrangements in force by virtue of subsection (1) above may vary or end the arrangements but in default of agreement the relevant authority may apply to the Secretary of State for a direction that arrangements in force shall continue.

(7B) On any application under the preceding subsection the Secretary of State may direct that arrangements in force shall continue, subject to any variation specified in the direction, and such direction shall be binding on the parties until revoked by the Secretary of State by a further direction.

(7C) In considering whether to give a direction under subsection (7B) the Secretary of State shall").

The noble Baroness said: I now move the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and myself. I do so because the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, as I explained at an earlier stage, is abroad. We very much regret that he is not able to put the case to your Lordships with the authority which he can command on this particular subject of agency.
This is a very important part of the Bill because it affects the relationships between the water authorities
178
and local authorities in this question of sewerage. I would hope that nobody speaks in this debate tonight who has not read and fully digested at least Chapter 14 of the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the sewerage functions of the Anglian Water Authority and the North-West Water Authority. There is no doubt at all that it is in that chapter that one has set out in, I think, very effective detail the intricacies of this particular relationship which was established in the principal Act of 1973. As it rightly says, the central question is whether the arrangements under the existing Section 15 of the principal Act provide a satisfactory framework for achieving efficiency. Your Lordships will recall that the arrangement at present pertaining is that the water authorities are under a duty to endeavour to make an arrangement with the councils partly within their area, for the carrying out of the repair and maintenance of existing sewers, the monitoring and maintenance of pumping stations and the capital investment in both sewers and pumping stations which may be required. As the Monopolies Commission says, the so-called agency prescribed by Section 15 is an odd one—I use their phrase. It is odd because the principal has no choice about whom he employs as agent and sees great difficulty in dismissing him if his performance turns out badly.
I should perhaps explain that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has recently reported on the water industry, including this aspect of sewerage, did not feel that it was suitable or desirable for it to go into the totality of the intricacies of this relationship because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission had done, we thought, a very thorough and basically very satisfactory job. I will come on in a moment to the particular issues with which the Select Committee on Science and Technology was concerned within its own remit. But it would be only fair, in the light of the succeeding amendments which are on the Marshalled List, for one to refer a little further to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's much more comprehensive investigation into the matter.
Having said on the one hand that the relationship was an odd one and clearly in many respects not satisfactory to the water authorities, on the other hand the Monopolies and Merger Commission also were at pains to point out that any terminations of this relationship in particular instances could bring considerable disadvantages and hardships to the local authorities. They make a very well balanced case coming down quite firmly on the view that the savings which are available—particularly technologically and organisationally—should the water authorities take over the responsibilities directly themselves, might be achieved without the general abolition of Section 15 arrangements. They also point out very fairly that while there can be technological and, therefore, ultimately financial advantages in a much more centralised organisation under the water authorities, nevertheless there are undoubtedly likely to be significant residual costs and difficulties of deployment of manpower and resources for local authorities. That is all very fairly and fully set out.
But the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were also perfectly clearly aware of the facts which were

179
brought constantly to the attention of the Select Committee indicating that there is a very uneasy relationship and that this stems largely from the historical fact that before the Act of 1973, it was the local authorities which themselves undertook these particular sewerage functions. It has proved extremely difficult for many local authorities, although by no means all, to accommodate themselves to the idea that they are not in fact principals in this area but that they are agents and therefore must accept that it is the responsibility of the water authorities to propose both a strategic plan for dealing with sewerage problems and also to further, as rapidly as may be, the pursuit of technical innovations which might be of general advantage.
They put it quite clearly in their report that the councils must recognise that the water authorities have the right to supervise their activities as closely as is necessary to achieve cost-effectiveness and qualitative standards. Moreover, the councils must accept that they are acting as agent and must work to achieve the objectives set them within the cost, technical and design parameters laid down by the water authorities.
Chapter 14 then proceeds to point out that there are in fact doubts as to the precise powers which a water authority can legally exercise under the model arrangements—that was presumably a previous term for "guidelines"—which were established following the passing of the 1973 Act. The report comments that these doubts as to the legal position and powers of the water authorities are an important obstacle to the efficient operation of Section 15. Their resolution ought not to be left to a dialogue between the councils and the water authorities or to the test of court proceedings.
It then goes on to list various situations in which the water authorities are in doubt as to their precise position. It mentions other areas of uncertainty which I think we would not perhaps wish to go into tonight, beyond pointing out that there are very serious doubts as to the precise legal relationships between them. Finally, they say that they were in no doubt that, not merely on recurrent work but on the selection and control of capital works, the water authorities did not have a satisfactory position; they indicated that the two authorities which they had been especially commissioned to investigate—the Anglian Water Authority and the North-West Water Authority—said that they found it impossible to carry out their responsibilities in capital operations under the existing Section 15 arrangements.
For example, the North-West Water Authority said that it cannot rely on the districts to identify projects to establish the correct priorities, and it believed that it should be given direct control of capital programmes and the furthering of their progress. The Anglian Water Authority was perhaps not quite so emphatic, but I must say that on the Select Committee we had other evidence which reinforced the opinions recorded here of these two major water authorities.
At paragraph 14.19 the Monopolies Commission says that these arguments of the water authorities are serious and substantial. They conclude that model arrangements do not unambiguously give the water
180
authorities the authority they need to establish regional strategy or capital programme, and that the model arrangements should be varied. I recognise that model arrangements are not by statute; nevertheless, they are the conditions under which these agency arrangements have hitherto been working. The Monopolies Commission says that the preferred solution of the two authorities—and I should have thought, from the evidence that we received, that it was the preferred solution of if not all, then certainly the majority of the water authorities—that all agencies be terminated is unnecessary. With this the Select Committee concurred.
The commission also said that the existence of the residual cost argument must not be used as a general argument against change, and it says finally that, apart from various amendments to the model arrangements, it was likely that amendment to Section 15 itself would be necessary.
I have gone into this at some length because I think it is very important in this question that we should have the background. There are 10 water authorities in England and Wales. There are more than 350 agency authorities, which are well and skilfully organised and led. Therefore, it is important that we should be quite clear that there are very considerable and substantial difficulties in the existing situation. Of course, the Select Committee itself was primarily concerned with the extent to which the present agency arrangements are impediments to improving the scientific and technological basis of our arrangements for sewerage. As the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, himself said on Second Reading, the conclusion to which we came in our endeavour to establish whether the agencies affected the water industry's technical capacity, was that the agencies were undoubtedly a "hindrance". That I think was a carefully chosen word.
We took evidence not only from water authorities themselves in addition to those that were so fully examined by the Monopolies Commission, but from other sources, including, for example, the hydraulic research station. As we say in terms, their evidence to us was that in their experience agent authorities are much more reluctant than water authorities to use modern methods—computer based programmes and flow analysis—which have now become possible because of modern communication systems. It is disturbing to find that they should suspect that many local authority agents are using what they called outdated tools in analysing the hydraulic performance of their sewerage system, and were not in a position to take advantage of new methods of analysis of flow, and so on, which are of course bringing about a revolution in the administration of this particular kind of function as they are in so many other directions.
The Severn-Trent Water Authority—and it is after all one of the largest in the country—said in its evidence at paragraph 442:
"There is some resistance by district councils to the introduction of new technology because of staffing implications and because some of these developments represent a loss of autonomy. The argument usually proffered is one of local response and immediacy, but the underlying reason is thought to be a feeling of loss of power of control."
This is understandable if one looks at the historical background.
However, the fact remains that if one is going to take advantage of modern technology one can do it effectively in many situations only on a scale which is larger than that at least of the smaller authorities. One cannot possibly employ some of the modern methods which are now available without extending the field of operations, for example, to a division of a water authority which would normally embrace a number of the smaller authorities. This would not necessarily apply to a metropolitan authority, but in the rural areas particularly one is not likely to find smaller authorities which can be employed effectively in this way.
For the reasons on which I have just touched, while the Select Committee agreed with the Monopolies Commission that one did not want to bring the whole agency concept to an end, we felt that the water authorities were being put under constraints which they found certainly irksome. This is why in the amendments on the Marshalled List which, had he been here, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, would have moved, it is proposed that instead of maintaining the words in the existing Act which impose a duty, it would be a permissive function of the water authority to come to an arrangement with the councils within its area.
I am not certain where we stand on discussing the related subsequent Amendment No. 27 in the name of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, or Amendment No. 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Fisher. I understand that the Government are not proposing to press their own amendment this evening, which puts one in a slightly ambivalent position. I have made, so far as I am able, the position of our Select Committee clear, but I am not sure how far it would be appropriate to continue to discuss the attitude as expressed in the present Government amendment, with which I think the Select Committee would have been sympathetic, or the somewhat different stance taken by my noble friend. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene at this point to explain his intentions?
Lord Bellwin: That might be helpful. I had intended to speak to this amendment and to Amendment Nos. 27, 27A, 28, 46, 47 and 48. I understand that the usual channels have discussed the matter so, with the leave of the Committee, I will deal with those also.
I listened to the noble Baroness very carefully and perhaps I might take this opportunity to set out the Government's position on the various proposals for amending Clause 6. The 1973 Act provided for sewerage arrangements between water authorities and local authorities, recognising that there were links between sewerage and local authorities' other functions and that there were benefits in local knowledge. However, there has been unease, as the noble Baroness fairly said, from time to time since then over whether the arrangements were such as to result in an efficient service.
In March of last year we asked the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—again, as she rightly pointed out—to investigate the efficiency of the two authorities concerned, Anglian and North West. The commission concluded that sewerage arrangements should,
182
generally, continue, but that in order to improve efficency, changes should be made to give water authorities better control. They noted with concern the attitude of some district councils who resented what they saw as interference from water authorities.
We consulted the water authorities, local authorities and others about the proposed amendments to Section 15 arising from the MMC report and there was a large and varied response. We also noted carefully the conclusions of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, who commented on sewerage agencies in their recent report on the water industry.
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 also believe that water authorities should retain overall responsibility for sewerage, in line with the principle underlying the 1973 Act, which gave them unified management of the whole water cycle. We accept the MMC's conclusion that local authorities should, generally, continue to carry out sewerage on behalf of water authorities under the Section 15 arrangements.
Within this framework we need to consider carefully how to strike the right balance so that water authorities will be able to control the activities of their agents and secure the efficient operation of sewerage without losing the benefits of local involvement.
We have tabled an amendment which would remove the duty on water authorities to endeavour to enter into arrangements, would change the procedures for ending or varying arrangements and would make other changes. This is similar in effect to Amendment No. 25 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, which of course reflects the report of the Select Committee which was chaired by Lord Sherfield.
The Government are concerned about the continuing unease among local authorities regarding the effects of the amendments. We have never envisaged any general termination of sewerage agencies. We want them to continue unless there are good reasons why, in specific cases, they should end. But we also need to ensure that the wording of the statute is consistent with our aim of improving efficiency.
The question of the right of appeal for local authorities who seek to establish new arrngements, in cases where they do not exist already, is also a matter of concern. We consider that perhaps such an amendment should be incorporated into an amendment such as the one that we have tabled to remove the existing duties on water authorities to seek to enter into arrangements. This is another point that we want to look at again, and that is why this evening I shall not be moving my amendment.
We feel that we ought to consider these detailed points more carefully, not least in the light of what the noble Baroness said. I was so pleased that she went to the trouble of putting the matter in such detail, and we shall note it carefully. We believe that we should also consider the points more carefully not least in the light of further representations made, so that we can try to make sure that we are striking the right balance. In the thousands of amendments with which we deal we are

183
told that we ought to consider the representations more carefully, and we always try to do so. There are times when perhaps we ought to give even extra consideration, and so we shall certainly return to this matter at Report stage. That is an undertaking that I give. The noble Baroness, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, my noble friend Lord Sandford, and others, have expressed concern. I hope that, in the light of the assurance that I have given about returning to the matter at Report stage, it will be agreed not to proceed with the amendment. We intend to return to the matter at Report stage, once we have been able to give it additional consideration.
9.47 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I have listened very attentively to what the Minister has said. As he rightly said, this is an important issue. It was discussed at very great length in committee in another place, and there was all-party support for the need to consider very seriously the Section 15 agency arrangements. I should like to thank the Minister for the amendment that he has placed on the Marshalled List, but not yet moved. That is in line with an agreement in the other place that there would be an amendment when the Bill came to your Lordships for consideration. So we thank the Minister for going that far, and we look forward to the Report stage, bearing in mind the undertaking that he has just given to us.
I want to spell out one or two points which I think it is important for your Lordships' Committee to understand. My noble friend Lady White went into great detail with regard to this matter. I, too, have read Chapter 14 of the report very diligently. It covers a great number of points. What the noble Lord has said accorded with what was said during the Committee stage in the other place. It was stated that many of the observations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report were accepted, and it was not envisaged that many local authorities or water authorities would move away from the arrangements.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said. Obviously, she read the various sections of the report that suited the case that she was putting forward, and I do not blame her for doing that. But parts of the report are very much in favour of the district councils and other local authorities, and that point was I believe made clear when the Minister spoke in the other House on Third Reading. I shall not delay your Lordships' Committee for very long, but Chapter 14, paragraph 7, of the report states:
"We must consider particularly the effect on DCs of the residual costs which they may have to absorb"—
and the noble Baroness made that particular point—
"if part of their manpower and equipment is not taken over by the RWAs. In addition, there are the possible increases in costs to DCs of discharging their own responsibilities for drainage, council-owned private sewers and public health, which may arise because economical scheduling of gangs becomes more difficult when their work level is reduced".
It is important for us to recognise that many of the large local authorities—those that are in the AMA—have large housing estates, with council-owned sewers. In those instances the councils' own arrangements apply. Therefore, it would not become
184
part of Section 15 even if there was a change of agency. I think I am correct in that point of view.
Another point that was brought out by the Monopolies Commission was that it is important that sewer repair and maintenance are linked with highways and local planning. The two things very often can go together. There are always the grievances from the general public who say: "Who dug that hole? It was filled in last week and it has been dug again this week". If the local authorities are in charge, there can be greater co-ordination regarding highways and local planning.
Obviously the maintenance of the sewers fits in quite naturally with their existing responsibilities under the Health Act 1936 to which the noble Lord the Minister drew attention. Perhaps I may say that the Monopolies Commission drew attention to how emergency services can very quickly be brought into action by local agencies. The local authorities normally have standby personnel—a phrase mentioned during our debate on the water dispute. Standby duties are part of emergency arrangements and they are part of emergencies that might happen with sewerage. Therefore, the local authority in that capacity can quickly respond to emergencies.
Therefore, I think one has to ask oneself this question. If the agency arrangements are terminated, who is going to undertake the work? That is the question that has to be posed and that is what the Government have to face up to. Will it be the direct labour of the water authority? Is that what is envisaged? Or will it be some private enterprise group that moves in and undertakes the work in the local authorities? I think the answer to that is a very important one; because district councils (as the noble Lord the Minister has said) are responsible for public health in their area and a variety of allied duties under the Public Health Act revolve around maintaining sewers and all the problems that could arise in connection with public health if they are not maintained correctly. The public have to be secure in the knowledge that any change in procedure will not give cause for concern. That is why I posed the question of who will take over if the agency is not kept by the local authority.
If we come particularly to the amendment in my name, I know that the amendment is only proposing a revision to Section 15 as it was originally drawn in the 1973 Act. But also we are trying to recognise the needs of the water authority, as they have become more identified and as they have been established since 1973. In acknowledging that, we are acknowledging that district councils also have a right to be treated fairly. To this end it is essential that future agency arrangements should rest on a secure basis without the unsettling factor of a constant threat of permanent termination by application of the water authority to the Secretary of State. There has been a lot of unease in local authorities since this report was made because there is this feeling that at any stage they might be told, "Your agencies are going to be terminated". That cannot make for good working arrangements between the water authorities and the local authorities.
We have in our amendment in subsection (6) a provision which seeks to give to a council time to

185
correct any serious default which may be alleged against it by the water authority concerned. If there is a serious default or a criticism of a local authority, the water authority should give time for the local authority to correct that fault before an appeal to the Minister to end the agency. But if the local authority does not measure up well, that is up to it. It then runs the chance of losing its agency when it makes its appeal to the Minister. I think perhaps that notification and time to rectify a fault must be given to it.
That is why we feel our amendment merits support. I know there is an implication that we still include "duty to endeavour". But it is a duty to endeavour to seek, to try to enter. The duty is to endeavour to have an arrangement. Quite obviously, it might mean that the endeavour does not come off. We are asking that the duty should be there to try to get the agency arrangement through the local authority, but, if for some reason that endeavour does not pay off, we fall back on an option, as the noble Lord has in his amendment.
The association has a fear, on the part of the larger metropolitan authorities in particular, that if water authorities have this amendment of ours it will give an opportunity for local authorities to look in terms of their own manpower. There is a great unease that if they lose their agencies their loss of manpower will be quite substantial, because they will lose the flexibility of using the men on sewers to work on something else for the water authorities. Not only will they lose the manpower that gives them flexibility, but they may also find themselves in difficulties in attracting and holding in the local authorities the engineers whom we were talking about at great length earlier. It is important for professional and career-minded engineers operating in local authorities to have a variety of interests. Therefore, sewers become one of their interests, amongst others. There are problems for local authorities of which I know the noble Lord is fully aware. We ask him to consider these problems when he returns with a further amendment.
My final and important point comes out in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report. It states:
"We must therefore be careful not to recommend changes which may turn out to be ill-advised in a few years when there is available improved knowledge of the sewerage system, as a result of the work we have described".
One of the proposals of the report is that we should not be hasty at this stage after such a short period of time, less than 10 years, in considering changing the system. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the observations he has made. I shall not be pressing the amendment
186
because I feel sure that he is trying his very best, as he says, to get the thing completely right. In that spirit, I accept all he has said.
Lord Sandford: I was sorely tempted to stir up the squabble which I thought was developing between the two noble Baronesses opposite, but I will resist that temptation and say that the acceptance by the Government of the idea of a power rather than a duty which results from the studies of our Select Committee and the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the correct stance to adopt. It only required the modification which my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated that he would add to the amendment he originally tabled to produce the accord which I ventured to suggest at Second Reading could be reached if we all applied our minds to this matter. Therefore I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said and I look forward to the amendment.
Baroness White: I think this has been a useful discussion even though it has led at the moment to no statutory conclusions. I was most grateful to the Minister for explaining clearly the position of the Government and their endeavours to square the circle or solve the insoluble. I am also grateful to my noble friend for her very clear exposition of the main points of the amendment standing in her name.
I do not think any good purpose will be served by pursuing the arguments further this evening, but perhaps I may just suggest to my noble friend that the one thing which really disturbs me in her own amendment is in subsection (6), in which it is suggested that a water authority should wish to terminate an agreement which might be a partial agreement—because it is extremely important to note that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission suggest that there are ways of terminating part of an agreement and not the entire agreement, for example, to take advantage of technological change. She suggests that it is always a question of serious default, but I would beg her to believe that it is not necessarily that at all. It is a situation in which you may need to have a change in the arrangements because of telemetry, for example, which permits remote recording and monitoring of local data in a way which is just inappropriate if you have a large number of separate authorities with agency arrangements. However, I will not pursue that at the moment and I think the sensible thing is to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 25.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos, 26, 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Civil liability of statutory water undertakers for escapes of sewage.
.—(1) Where an escape of sewage, however caused, from a sewer of statutory water undertakers causes loss or damage, the undertakers shall be liable, except as otherwise provided in this section, for the loss or damage.
(2) Statutory water undertakers shall not incur any liability under subsection (1) above if the escape was due wholly to the fault of the person who suffered the loss or damage or of any servant, agent or contractor of his.
(3) Statutory water undertakers shall not incur any liability under subsection (1) above in respect of any loss or damage suffered by any excepted undertakers for which they would not be liable apart from that subsection.
(4) The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Limitation Act 1980 shall apply in relation to any loss or damage for which statutory water undertakers are liable under this section, but which is not due to their fault, as if it were due to their fault.
(5) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects any entitlement which statutory water undertakers may have to recover contribution under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978; and for the purposes of that Act, any loss for which statutory water undertakers are liable under that subsection shall be treated as if it were damage.
(6) Where statutory water undertakers are liable, under any enactment or agreement passed or made before the coming into force of this section, to make a payment in respect of any loss or damage, they shall not incur liability under subsection (1) above in respect of the same loss or damage.
(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "damage" includes the death of, or injury to, any person (including any disease and any impairment of physical or mental condition);

(b) "excepted undertakers" means—

(i) statutory undertakers within the meaning of section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;

(ii) any highway authority within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980;

(iii) any bridge authority, bridge managers, street authority or street managers within the meaning of section 39(1) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950; and

(iv) any person on whom a right to compensation under section 26 of the said Act of 1950 is conferred;

(c) "fault" has the same meaning as in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; and

(d) "statutory water undertakers" has the meaning assigned to it by section 11(6) of the Water Act 1973.

(8) This section shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.").
The noble Lord said: We have left Clause 6 and we now come on to the matter of civil liability of statutory water authorities for escape of sewage. A new clause of this length and complexity should have some reliable antecedents and I hope that I can assure your Lordships that this is the case because we are looking at a part of a statute which is in fact an adaptation of Section 6 of the Water Act 1981.
During the passage of this recent piece of legislation, civil liability of statutory water undertakers for escapes of water from water mains was accepted as a suitable amendment, and tonight I hope that my noble friend will consider favourably the equivalent civil liability of statutory water undertakers for escapes of sewage, which would rectify what we considered to be a glaring anomaly.
Here I should declare an interest both as a householder and as a landowner and pass on to the history of civil liability in this field. In this regard, a certain case has astonishingly great importance. This dates back to the case of Green v.Chelsea Waterworks of 1894, in which it was held that an action does not lie in respect of the flooding of land by water escaping from water pipes when the body exercising its statutory powers did so without negligence. Thus, unhappily, there was a requirement for the plaintiff to prove negligence.
The situation was reversed in Section 6 of the Water Act 1981, which shifts the burden of proof from the shoulders of the plaintiff to rest upon the much broader shoulders of the undertakers. The comparison between water mains and sewers is a close one, and I think my noble friend will acknowledge from the discussions which have taken place on this subject that this is, happily, the case. The amendment seeks to do the same for sewers, and to shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the undertakers.
The extent of the problem of burst sewers is considerable, and it will be valuable if I draw your Lordships' attention to a Written Answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Giles Shaw, on 10th March, 1982, when he said:
"investigations by the Water Research Centre indicate that the number of excavations to carry out repairs to collapsed sewers is of the order of 2,000 per year in England and Wales."—[Official Report, Commons; col. 454.]
I know that many of your Lordships are very well aware of that in parts of the country where you live. My noble friend will also be aware that this matter was discussed at a meeting which was held at the department on 22nd July, 1981, and was carefully considered by his honourable friend Mr. Shaw, who took the chair on that occasion. Without further ado, I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Although a vaguely similar provision for damage from water escapes is in the Water Act 1981, as my noble friend Lord Sandys has said, the Government are not able to accept this amendment. I specifically use the word "vaguely", because there is some similarity here so far as the issue of principle goes, but we do not believe that the two cases have any similarity as regards the practicalities of the matter.
The first and fundamental point is that water authorities and companies have absolute control over what is put into their water mains. They have to maintain the pressures and they add the necessary substances to purify the supply. That is not the case with sewers. The water authorities are of course receiving agents so far as sewage is concerned. They do not control, except in relation to such matters as industrial discharge, what is placed in their sewers and, in particular, they do not control quantities and flows.
They are, moreover, at a particular disadvantage in this respect, since there is a virtually unrestricted statutory right, conferred by Section 34 of the Public Health Act 1936 on:
"the owner or occupier of any premises, or the owner of any private sewer …to have his drains or sewer made to communicate with the public sewers …and thereby to discharge foul water and surface water from those premises or that private sewer."

189
In a word, a water authority can do very little to prevent additional connections to their sewers, even where these will overload the system, as my noble friend remarked they sometimes do.
Section 17 of the 1936 Act and Section 15 of the Water Act 1973 together enable local authorities to adopt sewers without reference to the water authority. Indeed, this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, on the last amendment. This, too, presents an additional problem for water authorities, giving them less control than in many respects they would wish over their own sewerage network. The sewerage system is not designed to cope with every eventuality. In particular, if it was designed to discharge all the surface water which there might be in freak storm conditions, we would need massive sewers compared with those which we have at present.
Of course, the existing sewers cope with normal rainfall or even exceptionally heavy rainfall without too much trouble, but to prevent flooding altogether would be enormously expensive. My noble friend's amendment would conceivably give rise to liability in the event of freak weather which is entirely outside the control of water authorities. The amendment would not cover escapes of sewage from the numerous private sewers which exist. My noble friend referred to his own position as both a householder and a landowner. I should be interested to know whether the sewers are his own or whether they belong either to the local authority or to the water authority.
The demand for this amendment has always been expressed in relation to water supply: that is, the amendment now incorporated in Section 6 of the 1981 Act, to which my noble friend referred. We are not aware that failure to extend it to escapes of sewage has given rise in practical terms to major loss. My noble friend drew the Committee's attention to the meeting in July 1981, chaired by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, with Mr. Ted Graham, an Opposition environment spokesman in another place, and representatives of the water industry, the local authority associations, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union at which all these matters were discussed.
It was recognised that there was very little evidence that individuals were disadvantaged in significant respects by the absence of this provision. It was agreed that the various parties would collect information on cases, but I must point out to the Committee that no information has been submitted to my department since that time. Futhermore, we are still in the first year of operation of Section 6 of the 1981 Act. Until we have some idea of the cost which this has imposed upon the water industry, it would be most imprudent to extend the principles into the area of sewers, even if that were thought desirable.
For all these reasons, I do not feel that the amendment is reasonable in the circumstances. I hope my noble friend will agree with me.
Lord Sandys: I am grateful to my noble friend for going in such detail into a matter of both law and costs. The questions he raised with regard to freak weather conditions are materially important. He referred to private sewers. It will be of interest to my noble friend
190
to know that it has been estimated that over 90 per cent. of properties in this country are connected to the public sewer. A number of rural areas are not so fortunate. I happen to be included in the very small percentage of those not connected. This is a matter for further consideration. While I should be only too willing to beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment at this stage, may I reserve my position for a later stage of the Bill? In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Ownership of sewers.
. Where, prior to 1st April 1974, a local authority adopted a private street under the provisions of the Highways Act 1959, or any enactment consolidated in that Act, that adoption shall, unless the contrary intention on the part of the local authority appears, be deemed to have vested in that local authority any sewers serving that street.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I think I am right in assuming that this new clause has not been overtaken by the events announced in the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to Amendment No. 25, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that matters had been discussed through the usual channels. I hope it will be understood that when sewers are being discussed noble Lords on these Benches would not believe it very logical to object to not being regarded as part of the usual channels. However, the fact that we were not informed of that development was, I am sure, purely an oversight.
Lord Skelmersdale: This amendment stands very definitely on its own. It was never proposed, either 10 days ago or again today, with the revamp of ideas from both Opposition and the Government, that the noble Lord's amendment should be included in any block grouping.
Lord Winstanley: I had deduced that this amendment should not be included in any grouping, but where there are discussions through the usual channels I should like to hope that usually this Bench will be regarded as part of them. In normal circumstances, I am sure that it would. The amendment seeks to deal with what I generally believe to be a nationwide problem. As a Lancastrian, I should confess that information regarding this problem has come to me from Yorkshire where I understand the problem has caused particular trouble. Having said that, I think perhaps I may safely assume that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will know all about the particular problem, and may very well plan to deal with it in some way, perhaps by accepting my amendment or in some other way of his own.
The reasons for this amendment are best explained by an example. The Deanhouse Estate in the village of Netherthong in the Kirklees Metropolitan District Council area of Yorkshire was built in the years 1971 to 1972. The highways were adopted under the 1959

191
Highways Act by the former Holmfirth Urban District Council, and the councillors who were a party to that resolution say that they were under the firm belief that by adopting the highways under this procedure they were at the same time adopting the sewers. The chief executive of the Kirklees Metropolitan District Council confirms this belief. He says:
"I am informed that it was common practice in former authorities prior to reorganisation to use the powers contained in the Highways Act 1959 to adopt the highway in the belief that in doing so they were also adopting the sewers beneath the highway".
It now appears that nearly all the former urban district councils which constitute the Kirklees Metropolitan District Council followed the same procedure as that in Holmfirth.
However, the Yorkshire Water Authority does not accept this practice as either legally or morally binding. Instead, the Yorkshire Water Authority insists that before it will accept such sewers as public sewers evidence must be brought forward in the shape of either (a) a record or a minute of the sewers separate adoption under the 1936 Public Health Act, or, alternatively, (b) evidence on the sewer map maintained by the local authority showing the sewers concerned as public sewers even though they may only have been adopted under the 1959 Highways Act.
Neither of those alternatives seems to offer much comfort to the householders concerned. In regard to the first one, a record or a minute of the sewers separate adoption under the 1936 Act, I am told that in some areas officials and councillors of former urban district councils are convinced that a separate minuted adoption of sewers took place under the 1936 Public Health Act, but they tell me that the records have been lost in the transition from urban district council to metropolitan and non-metropolitan district council status. Therefore, all those minutes having been lost, there is no relief for the householders by that route. With regard to the other alternative, evidence on the sewer map, I am told that in the early 1970s, during the housebuilding boom and the changeover in local government, many of the maps were more or less neglected. Indeed, the sewer map for the Deanhouse Estate area, maintained by the Yorkshire Water Authority offices and not by the local authority offices, still shows a hospital standing on the site of the estate. So there is not much help via that route either.
Although the water authority has adopted this legal stance in all cases, in practice it has only applied this rigid approach in those cases where the sewers have been found to be defective. In those cases the residents are told that the expense of repairing the sewers is their own, and that the water authority will not consider adoption until such time as these repairs, often very expensive repairs, have been carried out to the satisfaction of the water authority. This has caused immense problems and financial hardship to the residents on the various estates affected, and I am told there are many such estates. It lowers house prices; people have difficulty in selling their houses at all, and when they do sell they are often forced to leave substantial sums of money in the hands of their solicitors as a bond in case the residents are proved to be liable for the repair of the estate's sewers.
192
Land searches done on houses on that particular estate have given the answer, "Yes" to questions asking whether the land is drained to a public sewer. More recently the answer has been "Yes, so far as can be determined". Residents on the estates affected all pay full water and sewage rates. At present such disputes can only be resolved by appeal to the Secretary of State under Section 17 of the Public Health Act 1936. That course of action, in fact, has been successful in places like Richmond, in Yorkshire. But it is an expensive business and necessitates a public inquiry for each separate case. That, surely, is a very unsatisfactory way of handling these matters.
Perhaps I should finally make it clear that this amendment is designed only for those pre-1974 local authorities which had a unitary responsibility for both sewage and highways. Some authorities had responsibility for only one or the other. Also, it is to apply where sewers and highways were constructed over the same period. I am quite sure that this problem has already come to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, particularly as it has been a problem that has caused so much aggravation in Yorkshire, However, I understand that it is a general problem and I hope that the noble Lord will have found a solution to it. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, seems to be making a habit this evening of shooting my foxes before I even see them. However, we shall see how we get on with this one.
I obviously sympathise with the noble Lord's reasons for proposing this new clause to the Committee, but I am afraid I cannot accept it for the following reasons. Reorganisation of the water industry in 1974 transferred sewerage and sewage disposal responsibilities to the new water authorities. However, prior to that, local authorities were frequently both the sewerage and highway authority, as well as having responsibility, incidentally, for building control, housing and planning. It was quite common for the separate statutory agreements concerning the adoption by the authority of private roads and sewers to be combined in one document. Provided they were clearly drafted, no confusion should have arisen. However, I am aware that this was not always the case and, for one reason or another, the intentions of the predecessor local authority have been lost sight of.
I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that one of the purposes of this clause is to remedy any such problem by requiring the private sewers lying beneath highways to be adopted by the public authority and so be maintained at public expense. I am also aware that there are variations on this proposition, to which I shall come later.
Legislation already exists, and has done since as long ago as 1936, to enable private sewers and sewage works to be adopted into the public system. One avenue is by agreement at the time of construction between the water authority and the development—Section 18 of the Public Health Act 1936 refers here—and the other by request from an owner of any sewer; that is, under Section 17. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if the water authority refuses the request.

193
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said that he is not terribly happy with this avenue. Nonetheless, it exists in law, has been used and has proved to be effective in by far the majority of cases. Although this latter option does not guarantee adoption in every case, it is an avenue always available to the owner of any post-1936 sewer or sewage disposal works to be exercised at any time, including where the intention of the predecessor authority has been lost sight of.
An important feature is that this latter option obliges water authorities, and the Secretary of State on appeal, to have regard to specific considerations which indirectly protect the public purse; namely, the method of construction of the sewer, its state of repair and its adaptability to the public system.
May I say at this point how interested I was by the noble Lord's reference to Kirklees. There is, as he knows, an appeal case currently before the Secretary of State relating to this particular area. I would ask the noble Lord to accept that I am precluded, because of my right honourable friend's quasi—judicial position in this, from saying anything on that particular case.
Having said that, to return to the more general points in the amendment, I appreciate that house-owners may unexpectedly find that they have a private sewer liability that they may not have known about, usually when something goes wrong. I sympathise with that. However, I do not think, as I was trying to explain earlier, that that problem can be attributed to the legislation. I am bound to say, therefore, that the proposed clause takes no account of the considerations arising on adoption, nor of the open-ended public expenditure implications that would arise, particularly if water authorities were obliged to adopt defective systems, and nor of the views of some owners, albeit perhaps a minority, who may not want adoption of their particular sewers.
Nevertheless, I am aware of the various criticisms made of existing legislation and the suggestions made for its improvement—that all sewers should be constructed to adoption standards, that adoption should be mandatory and that sewers beyond the curtilage of private property should be publicly owned. All those points deserve consideration, but in the context, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, of a comprehensive study so that all the implications can be considered properly. I can assure the Committee that we shall undertake that as soon as there is an opportunity to do so. In the meantime, perhaps the noble Lord may agree with me that it would perhaps not be right in the circumstances to pursue this particular amendment.
Lord Winstanley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the care and the detail with which he has replied to this particular amendment. I shall read his reply with very great care and I hope that he will also read what I have said with similar care at a later stage. But I am bound to say that I cannot accept that his answer is wholly satisfactory, in so far as it appeared to suggest that the existing remedy—namely, an appeal to the Secretary of State under Section 17 of the Public Health Act 1936—was an altogether satisfactory
194
safety net for that particular solution, especially when I bear in mind that that method is very expensive and necessitates a public inquiry on each separate case.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord the Minister really thinks that it would be helpful to anybody to have a multiplicity of appeals to the Secretary of State, followed by multiplying public inquiries, which have, as the noble Lord acknowledged, turned out in favour of the appellant on a number of occasions. I fully accept that he cannot comment on the case in Kirklees to which he referred or indeed on any other case that may be pending. But it is a fact that cases that have gone to a public inquiry have in the end ended in favour of the complainant. I should have thought that we ought perhaps to find a more suitable method of dealing with the situation. I accept that the method which has been contained in the new clause which I moved may very well not be the right method. There may be other ways of doing it. On the understanding which I seem to get from the noble Lord that this whole matter is being looked at in general terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.28 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys moved Amendment No. 30A:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Power to lay mains.
(". Section 19 (power to lay mains) of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 shall apply as if the substitution made for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) by Article 7 of the Local Authorities etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1977 had not been made.")
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 38B at the same time as Amendment No. 30A. I think that it will be in the interests of the House if I condense my remarks as much as possible at this late hour, but perhaps I should say that the present law is that public sewers may be laid across private land by virtue of Section 15 of the Public Health Act 1936 and water mains may be laid under paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945, as amended by the Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1977. These sections enable a water main or a sewer undertaking to enter land after giving "reasonable notice" in writing to owners or occupiers. There is no right of appeal or opportunity to object or to make representations on these proposals.
These powers are quite unlike any others. They seem abnormal when compared with what one would normally expect to find in English Law. For example, under the Pipelines Act 1962 (which does not of course apply to water mains or sewers), interested parties can make objections to pipeline schemes and an inquiry can be held.
As to compulsory purchase, the standard procedure is that an inquiry must be held if an owner wants one. The latitude given to water and sewage authorities is illustrated by the Court of Appeal case of Hatton v. Esher Urban District Council in 1973—the reference is 1973 2 AER 1123—where the local authority wished to construct a large pipeline across an area to alleviate flooding. The scheme involved the demolition of a bungalow, and the householder applied to the court claiming that the authority did not have so farreaching

195
a power as to be entitled to demolish a dwelling without having the right to object. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument; the authority was obliged simply to give reasonable notice and to pay compensation, even though a person's home was to be demolished.
That case is really startling. There are other examples which I will cut because of the eye of my noble friend the Chief Whip. But one of the extraordinary features of the situation is the way in which the power to lay waterpipes has been amended. I hope that your Lordships will observe what has happened because it is very interesting. Paragraph 19 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945, as originally enacted, required that water undertakers should obtain the consent of every owner and occupier through whose land the pipe would run. If consent was withheld, the matter would be referred to the Minister for determination.
However, that paragraph was amended in 1977 by the Labour Government by subordinate legislation. A miscellaneous provisions order, dealing with a curious assortment of subjects from Mortlake Crematorium to Biggleswade Market, made a fundamental shift in the procedures for laying mains by removing the requirement to obtain the owner's consent. The order was laid on 3rd March 1977 and came into operation on 1st April. So the change slipped through practically unnoticed before anyone realised what had happened. I presume, although I may be wrong, that the change was made in order to equate the powers for water mains with those for sewers under the Public Health Act; and, coming as it did after the Hutton case to which I referred, it enabled water authorities to capitalise on the submissive decision of the Court of Appeal.
I think we can say that these powers which are enshrined in the present legislation are both harsh and far-reaching. I feel that the amendments which I have proposed to your Lordships may indeed bring the situation in regard to both more into line with what is current public feeling on the subject. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful, as I know my noble friend the Chief Whip is, to my noble friend Lord Sandys for speaking to both of his amendments together. My noble friend has referred to the historical background of this matter, and I therefore need not repeat it. However, I would add one very important point in case there should be any doubt on the matter. The water authorities and their predecessors have always been obliged to compensate people for any damage they may have sustained in the course of their sewer or main-laying activities.
On the face of things, the powers to which my noble friend referred are wide ones. For more than 100 years it has been found useful not to allow the water authorities' main-laying and sewerage programme to be jeopardised by the refusal of landowners to allow mains and sewers to be built, and we can at the moment see no reason for changing the position.
Let me say very gently to my noble friend that I do not think, in spite of what he said this evening, that he has produced any evidence of the abuse of these
196
powers and we in Government are certainly not aware of any major problems. What is more, to a large extent water authorities prefer to reach agreement with landowners, at least for their water main-laying programmes, and to enter into deeds of easement. I am quite sure that this is a sensible approach; but it is important that the water authorities and water companies have their statutory powers in reserve for use if necessary. In the unlikely event of abuse of these powers, they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts or the Ombudsman, depending on the particular circumstances.
It is true that under my noble friend's amendment there would still be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State if consent were unreasonably withheld. But it is of no great help where a programme has to be implemented quickly—for instance, where there is a massive renovation programme on hand, or new development is to be serviced, or where an extensive rationalisation of a water main system is being undertaken, as from time to time happens. It is important not to hold up these programmes.
Finally, my noble friend's amendment on water mains would lead to precisely the problem that the 1977 order, to which he has referred, was intended to overcome. There would be a patchwork of different powers. In the old local authority areas, there would be no need to obtain landowners' consent, nor would there be in a number of areas where private legislation or amendments to Section 19 of the third schedule to the Water Act 1945 have been incorporated in water undertakers' enactments. This House has criticised precisely this patchwork effect in water legislation in its comments on private legislation in the past, and I suggest that it is hardly appropriate for us to be adding to this problem at this stage.
In short, while I understand my noble friend's intention, I do not think that his amendments begin to achieve what he has in mind. As I said at the beginning, even if I did, I am afraid that I cannot accept that they are right in principle, and I hope he will be able to see his way to withdrawing them.
Lord Sandys: I feel that perhaps my noble friend's last statement, that they were not right in principle was the most sweeping. There is here a principle of equity which goes beyond the matter of administrative convenience, and I understand what my noble friend has alluded to in regard to patchwork ownerships in a housing redevelopment area. Nevertheless, there are situations in which it is a question of much greater consideration than perhaps he is aware of at the moment, whereby it would be beneficial and in the public interest both to advise and inform owners prior to the arrival of contractors on the site.
At this stage I do not wish to press the amendment. Nevertheless, I should like to urge the question of the scale of the operation upon my noble friend. Prior to 1973 the scale of these undertakings was not anything like so great as it is today. Very often at the present time the scale of the operation may take hundreds of acres of farm land in order to accomplish a very major sewerage works or a pipe-laying operation of considerable complexity. I think that this matter is worthy of further consideration. I would wish to

197
reserve my position; but, in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30B not moved.]
Clause 7 [Arrangements by water authorities for representation of consumers' interests]:
10.39 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Arrangements under subsection (1) above shall require each water authority to establish committees, called Consumer Consultative Committees.
( ) The number of committees to be established shall be determined by each water authority after consultation with each relevant local authority whose area is wholly or partly in the area of the water authority.
( ) The water authority shall secure, as respects each Consumer Consultative Committee, that—

(a) at least one member thereof is appointed by each relevant local authority;

(b) at least half of the members thereof shall consist of persons appointed by those relevant local authorities;

(c) the Chairman thereof shall be elected by the members from one of their number;

(d) the appointment of a person to act as Secretary thereof shall be made by the Consumer Consultative Committee;

(e) the expenses reasonably incurred by the Consumer Consultative Committee are approved and paid.

( ) In this section, "relevant local authority" means, in relation to a Consumer Consultative Committee, the council of a London Borough or of a county or district as defined in relation to England in section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or of a county or district mentioned in section 20(3) of that Act (which relates to Wales) or the Common Council of the City of London of which the area or part of it is in each case included in the area of the Consumer Consultative Committee.
( ) Each water authority shall supply to a Consumer Consultative Committee such information and documents relating to its functions as such Committee may reasonably request.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. However, before deploying the case for it, I should like to question whether it is sensible to proceed with the Bill further at this particular moment. In coming to this clause, we come to the matter on which the main criticism of the whole House was concentrated at Second Reading This is the point on which all our misgivings from all over the House were focused—namely, at the lack of accountablility which would be available and applied to the newly-constituted regional water authorities. The fact of the matter is that after six hours of debate on this Bill we are less than half way through the amendments on the Marshalled List. We have dealt with 18 out of the 38 amendments. Here we are coming to one of the most important parts of the Bill. I have a fairly long speech, and I dare say that other Members of the Committee have, too. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for me to just sit down while the Chief Whip or the Leader respond to what I have just said?
Lord Denham: It is always agreed through the usual channels exactly how much time should be convenient for the Committee to take on a Bill such as this. If at an earlier stage I start agitating and suggesting that
198
your Lordships are taking too long, I get criticism and people say, "Why don't you leave it and then everything will come all right?" But I have not been agitating today. Your Lordships have been taking quite a lot of time on these amendments. It is up to your Lordships how long you want to take. We finish the Bill today, and if my noble friend wishes to deploy his points I hope he will now do so.
Lord Sandford: It is certainly not the Chief Whip's fault that we took over an hour and a half on a single amendment earlier today; but nor is it my fault. I feel that we have now reached an important part of the Bill and we shall have to spend some time on it. This is an amendment which bears the name of myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, who is leading for the Opposition, and my noble friend Lord Ridley. When my noble friend and I table amendments it is sometimes assumed that we are speaking respectively with the interests of the ACC and the ADC in mind. In this particular case I have to say that my noble friend Lord Ridley wants me to start by dissociating the Association of County Councils from the whole conception of consumer consultative committees because he thinks they will be totally ineffective. I share that view to the extent that as at present constituted they will be totally ineffective, and I think that in Parliament we have a duty to do what we can to remedy that situation rather than abandon it.
The present amendment is merely a probing one designed to elicit from my noble friend on the Front Bench his explanation and justification for what the Government are currently proposing in this field. In the light of our Second Reading debate, in the light of consultations since then, in the light of growing public concern about this Bill which has been expressed since then—and in that period we have seen the water strike—I can see that this amendment is only illustrative, and nowhere near strong enough or emphatic enough and does not put enough detail on the face of the Bill.
However, there is time for Her Majesty's Government to respond to the mood of the Committee, the concern of the public, and the evident need to provide in the Bill for the provision of really effective watchdogs over Lady Fisher's watercress. These are watchdogs that can be more effective than any similar consultative committees associated with any of the nationalised industries that we have seen so far. They must be able to raise standards in terms of giving value for money; to raise standards all over the industry to the level of the best; to encourage the highest possible day-to-day efficiency; and to secure the effective pursuit of long-term strategies. The committees will also need to ensure the proper pursuit of complaints. They will need to expose maladministration, and to be able to promote proper scrutiny of public expenditure throughout the industry. They will not need to handle all this work themselves; the best practice in operational performance will, when it is achieved, deserve publicity, and that can be disseminated by the press, though perhaps not as effectively in the new authorities as it could have been in the old. Value for money achievements can be established by reference by the CCCs either to the Audit Commission or to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the pursuit of

199
long-term and broad strategy is a matter that can be referred by the CCCs—for an accolade or criticism, whichever is deserved—to one or other of the specialised Select Committees of either House of Parliament. Maladministration, as we have now heard, can, as I say, be referred by the CCCs to the ombudsman.
In such ways, the CCCs can and should be able to make use of a number of agencies already expert in various fields of scrutiny and investigation. So they need not do all this themselves; they can do it in alliance with other appropriate agencies. It seems to me that Parliament must see to it that that is provided for in the statute.
All experience in this field—as we constantly hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, in respect of the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority—is quite conclusive that it cannot and must not be left to a public sector industry itself or to its sponsoring department, and certainly not to a partnership between the two.
Nevertheless, I am sure the Committee would be interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Bellwin his justification of what is proposed so far in the Bill and his plans, in response to the considerable concern expressed in all parts of the House on Second Reading, for offering us something more acceptable at the next stage. If he can do that in a short debate now, we shall then know what more your Lordships' House will have to do over the next weeks, between now and the end of the Easter Recess, when I understand the Report stage of the Bill will be taken. I beg to move.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I rise briefly to support the comprehensive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. As he rightly said, this is a probing amendment. On Second Reading, noble Lords in all parts of the House voiced the desire that the consumer consultative councils should be not just watchdogs but watchdogs which were capable of biting. That is what we need to be assured of by the Minister: how far will the consultations take us in achieving real consumer consultative councils? Perhaps our proceedings on the Bill have taken rather longer than might otherwise have been the case because whenever something comes up for discussion we are told, "The draft guidelines are being considered" or "People are being consulted on that", and so on. The Bill's passage would have been speedier if the guidelines and consultations had been completed before this stage. Indeed, we should not need probing amendments such as this if the Bill explained what the CCCs will comprise and what their duties will be.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My noble friend Lord Winstanley regrets that he cannot be here to support the amendment; he has been called away. I wish briefly to support the amendment because it brings us back to an extremely important area which I raised earlier in the Bill. If consumers are to have access to the affairs of the various authorities—which we have been maintaining they must have—it is extremely important that the arrangements that are made are efficient, above board, and written onto the face of the Bill. That is why I think that the amendment is important in itself. I very much regret that the whole idea of the authorities is such that there cannot be
200
consumer representation on them. But, if that is so, there certainly ought to be consumer consultative committees.
So far as I am concerned, the most important part of the amendment is what I presume would be subsection (5), which states:
"Each water authority shall supply to a Consumer Consultative Committee such information and documents relating to its functions as such Committee may reasonably request".
The right to have access to documents and information is absolutely essential, if the consumer consultative committees are not to be mere wastepaper baskets for the complaints of the public, unable to do anything about them.
10.52 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My amendment follows Amendment No. 31 and is very much on the same lines. Therefore with the permission of your Lordships' Committee, and in order to save time, I should like to speak to it at this stage. My concern in my amendment is that members of consumer committees as proposed in the Bill, though nominated from organisations outside the water authority, can be vetoed by the water authority. I hope, and indeed, judging from what I have heard so far, I believe, that your Lordships will agree that such a state of affairs is not a good principle.
Although I accept that in practice the water authority will probably not exercise the power, for obvious reasons—not least that of making its own watchdog into a pet poodle dog—it would be better if the water authority did not have a power of veto. My amendment would make sure that the water authority does not have the power to reject members properly proposed by local authorities and other bodies for membership of consumer committees, though, as is customary, it would allow a veto by the Secretary of State. I hope that your Lordships' Committee will agree with my amendment, which would help to ensure that consumers committees are at least sheepdogs, if not Alsatians, rather than the lap-dogs which at the moment they appear to be under the Bill.
The Earl of Shannon: Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I, too, seek the leave of your Lordships' Committee to speak to my own amendment, No. 33. It would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a few comments on my amendment, and then all the contributions can be answered together, since they are very much on the same subject. My amendment is essentially a probing amendment in order to find answers to two particular questions. First, the Bill still contains references to the consumer committees, and I was wondering whether the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, would now be prepared to enlarge on what he said during the Second Reading debate. I should like to quote part of what he said, as reported at column 1074 of the Official Report:
"What we feel is needed at the regional level is that there should be established in all water authority areas sport and recreation committees to provide a link between the water authorities and the recreational conservation bodies. These will be regional committees, not part of the consumer cunsultative committees".
There is no mention of such committees in the Bill; there is no amendment down about them, and I was

201
wondering whether the noble Lord would be prepared to enlarge on that statement which he made.
In my amendment I have included one particular class of recreational user, the reason being that I was interested to know exactly how the Secretary of State is to view recommendations for appointment to these committees of representatives of recreational users. Many waterways are navigations. They have been navigations traditionally; in fact some are even called navigations. It may be that on one of these there is only a small quantity, say, 100 navigators, but there are probably 500 people who like to sit along the banks dangling bent pins with worms on them. Equally there may be another 500 people who like walking their dogs. It could be claimed that the navigators have absolutely no right to be represented because they are totally outnumbered by the others. Is there any form of wording that is likely to be used in the guidelines (which as yet we have to see) showing that mere numbers of people do not on small committees occupy all the seats to the exclusion of others who are equally well entitled to be there?
Lord Skelmersdale: Perhaps I might presage what I have to say by saying that no one has been casting what my five-year-old son calls "nasturtions" on the length of speeches of noble Lords. The first point I must make in all this is that Clause 7 imposes a clear duty on the water authorities to prepare a report on arrangements to represent the interests of consumers. Once that report is approved by the Secretary of State, it will be the duty of the water authority to implement the arrangements. It is quite clear that this imposes an obligation that arrangements are to be established and must be arrangements to represent the interests of consumers; or the water authority will be in breach of its statutory duty.
I accept that from Second Reading onwards, and also in discussion in another place, there has been a lot of concern over exactly how the Government envisage that these consumer committees will be set up and how they will operate once they have been set up. The short answer to this and to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, is that on 22nd November last the Government published draft guidelines on the basis of the arrangements and the scope of the committees' activities.
Subsequent discussion in another place, and on Second Reading here, has led us to believe that there must still be considerably more discussion before these guidelines are finalised. I take note in these discussions of everything that has been said this evening on the point and on earlier stages. The Government position on these guidelines is far from final. I hope the Committee will be able to accept this. Even now, we have made various changes to the guidelines and given various commitments. I am not sure whether, in view of the lateness of the hour, the Committee would like me to go through them but I am perfectly prepared to do so.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Were those the guidelines that were made available to Members, some of which were placed in the Library?
Lord Skelmersdale: No. This is very complicated. There are three different sets of guidelines attached to this Bill. I am talking about those published on 22nd November last while the Bill was in another place. I have them in my hand at the moment. They have been available since that time. If any members of the Committee have not got them, it would perhaps be wise not to speak much more until they have had time to consider them. I do not know what the Committee feels on that score.
While the noble Baroness is cogitating on that, may I turn to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on the subject of the recreation and conservation committees? We have accepted the arguments which have been put to us by many organisations involved in this area, notably the Inland Waterways Association, but many others, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will know, the conservation bodies. But it is wrong simply to graft the representation of recreational conservation and amenity interests on to the divisional level consumer consultative committees which are to be established under Clause 7. We therefore envisage these as being totally separate entities with their own specific responsibilities and their own particular access to the water authorities.
We have amended Clause 7 in another place to make clear that, in making proposals to represent the interest of customers, water authorities should include those who are likely to use water, or land associated with water, for the purposes of recreation.
If the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, will turn to subsection (9) on page 6 of the Bill he will see the definition of the word "consumers", which includes,
"persons who use or are likely to use, for the purposes of recreation, any water or land associated with water in respect of which the water authority in question are under the duty imposed by section 20 above".
In other words, navigators would be just as much consumers as would the fishermen with the bent hook, the conservationists, the boating fraternity, the water skiers. They are all consumers, so I assure the noble Lord that they are covered by his amendment which subsequently becomes unnecessary.
There is one other general point that I should like to make at this stage. That is that we are now clear that the chairmanship of both sets of committees should not be at the discretion of the water authorities themselves, but the committees should appoint their own chairmen. This has been something which I know has caused concern and I hope the Committee will agree with this view of the Government.
As I say, I can go into this matter at very great length. I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. I should like to know its wishes.
Lord Melchett: I have one question. The noble Lord said "both sets of committees". Was he referring to the consultative committees and the regional consultative committees involving conservation and recreation interests?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, that is what I meant by "both sets".
Lord Melchett: It would be better if I pursue this because it will save time on the next amendment. Would that allow the committees to choose a member of the authority to chair them, or not?
Lord Skelmersdale: It has not, as I understand it, yet been decided whether automatically a member of the water authority would be on the committees at all. But I understand that it would be totally within their power to co-opt a member of the water authorities to sit with them. It would then be up to the committees themselves to decide whether that water authority member—whether he was co-opted or not—should be chairman. I do not think it is desirable in all cases that the water authority appointee or member, however he gets there, should necessarily become chairman of the committee.
Baroness White: May I ask the Minister a small practical point? he referred to three sets of guidelines and he used the word "published". Does he mean that in the normal sense of the word—in other words, we can get it from the Printed Paper Office—or does he mean that copies have been laid in the Library? If copies have been laid in the Library all that one can obtain, as I have already found, is an awkward photostat which is bulky and heavy and is nothing like as convenient as the kind of document which ought to be available in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Skelmersdale: I take the noble Baroness's point. To the best of my knowledge and belief copies are available, or were available, in the Printed Paper Office. If not, I shall most certainly make it my business to make sure that they are available there from now on.
Lord Sandford: It does put us in rather an awkward position because this, of all the clauses, is the one to which Parliament should be paying the most attention, but I hesitate to invite my noble friend to read what looks like a fairly formidable speech. I wonder if I might suggest to him that it might meet the case if he caused the lengthy remarks, which he says he has at his disposal, to be published in the Official Report. Then we should at least be able to see tomorrow what he would have said, and so will all the people who are interested in this but are not present with us at the moment. It may be that he can add to that in the Official Report either the guidelines or a summary of them, which we really need in order to have a substantive and effective discussion of all these points. That is the first suggestion I should like to make.
The other thing is that I think there will be a general welcome for the concept he has now expressed, that the consumer consultative committees should be separate entities—that is to say, we are not going to see an extension of the arrangement prevailing in Wales at the moment, where the consumer committees are an integral part of the water authority, which I think most noble Lords would agree is totally unsatisfactory. It is also an advance that the chairman is to be appointed by the committee itself. These are all things we shall want to see spelt out in the Bill. We do not want these matters left to the publication in guidelines which are not yet complete.
204
The Bill as drafted at the moment requires reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State after the passage of the Bill, which he will then be free to approve or modify. By that time the whole arrangement will be beyond the control of Parliament, and that will not do either. So there is a lot of work still to be done on this clause. I think it would help us in the consideration that we have got to give to this between now and the Report stage if the noble Lord would refrain from giving us a long speech now but cause what he would have said to be published in the Official Report.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am advised that it would be quite improper, not to say out of order, in your Lordships' Committee to have included in the Official Report remarks that I might have made. However, obviously I understand the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Sandford, and I can undertake to write to each and every member of the Committee, if that would be its wish.
Lord Melchett: Another alternative which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, might care to consider before the Committee rises is the possibility of a Question for Written Answer being asked that would get it into the Official Report in a manner which I am sure would cause no problems for the authorities.
Lord Sandford: In the light of that response, with some reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert ("; and
(c) to appoint to any consumer body specified by the arrangements such representatives of the interests of consumers in the area as may be nominated by local authorities or other bodies in accordance with the arrangements, unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise.")
The noble Lord said: May I just ask my noble friend whether he will also write to me specifically on this amendment? Secondly, may I confirm that what he said about the recreation committees, if I may call them that, is that they may have a right to ask for a member who is on the board to serve on their committee? Those are the only two points that I wish to raise. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer is "Yes" to both questions.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon had give notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 33:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert ("navigators and all")
The noble Earl said: In view of the answers given by the Minister to me previously, I do not wish to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved]
Clause 7 agreed to.
11.9 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
"Conservation sport and recreation
( .—(1) Each water authority shall establish a committee whose task it shall be to advise the authority and which shall consist of representative sport and recreation interests in the area covered by the authority.
(2) In the annual report required by paragraph 40 of Schedule 3 to the principal Act, each water authority shall include an account of—

(a) its activities in the fields of conservation, sport and recreation; and

(b) the manner in which it has fulfilled its obligations under section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.)".

The noble Baroness said: This is another probing amendment and it is unfortunate that we have to have perhaps some of the more important matters that have been raised during the Committee stage rushed through at the very last minute. There are difficulties, because the Committee is concerned about what will happen with the abolition of the Water Council. The Minister referred on Second Reading to regional committees for recreation and conservation, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, also mentioned the setting-up of regional committees to provide a link between water authorities and the recreational and conservation bodies.
By tabling this amendment, we wish the Minister to tell the Committee how he envisages that these committees will function, to whom they will be accountable and who will compose them. I am fully aware that the consultation procedures have not yet finished, but I am concerned about the fact that recreation has been included in the consumer consultative bodies. This is a little strange, because most of the recreational bodies prefer the thought that the regional committees will be set up for recreation and conservation, as the Minister said on Second Reading. It does not appear that that will happen.
As I said, this is a probing amendment, and perhaps the Minister will be able to help us regarding the setup, especially of those bodies which were under the aegis of the Water Space Amenity Commission. We understand, from reading the reports of the other place, that it is accepted that the work of that commission will continue in some way or other. But there is a whole range of activities, such as liaison committees and joint committees covering conservation, sport and recreation, which are broken down into working groups on angling, sailing, water ski-ing and nature trails. So it is important for us to know what will happen to all the various bodies which were co-ordinated under the previous organisation. Therefore, in the discussion of this amendment we should like to find out what will be coming forward to satisfy conservationists and recreationalists.
I know that the amendment, as tabled, is not satisfactory to the conservationists. They do not wish to be linked with the recreationalists and sports people. Perhaps they are not good bedfellows, so that may cause a difficulty. But I put down the amendment for the simple reason that we wish to inquire what will happen. Are we to have separate regional committees for conservation, for sport and for recreation? I should
206
have thought that the needs of the recreationalists were now, automatically, almost damned, by the very fact that they will be on the consumer consultative committees, where they feel that their interests will be very much overlooked.
The noble Lord the Minister shakes his head. But the opinion that I have received from sporting bodies is that the majority of the people who will be sitting on the consumer consultative committees—and we do not vet know how they will be composed, so I am only surmising—will be those who are more interested in getting the cheapest possible water supply or a pure water supply, and they will have the point of view of the householder, the industrialist or commerce. Surely, too, there will be local authority representatives in great numbers, who will also be concerned about a pure water supply.
The people who are interested in recreation feel that, more often than not, they will be fighting a very difficult case. They believe that their interests will be regarded as less important than the very much wider issues that will be discussed on these committees. Therefore the fear is that minority views will not be completely discussed by the consumer consultative councils. My noble friend Lord Melchett will explain why he feels that conservation should not be part of sport and recreation. I leave that matter to him. There is a range of activities which the National Water Council and the National Water Space Amenity Commission have conducted up to now. By means of this amendment we are trying to ascertain how the Government view the continuation of these services in the future.
A standing technical advisory committee on water quality consists of representatives of the department and the National Water Council. This committee has shown quite recently that nitrate levels are causing great concern and that they are largely the result of the increased use of fertilisers in agriculture. Will that committee be moving over from the National Water Council, and is it to become part and parcel of another body? It is a most important committee which is concerned with water purity and water safety. The observations of all these organisations will not be received until 31st March, but we want to be sure that the thousands and thousands of people who are directly interested in all kinds of sport, recreation and conservation will have their voice heard in the future as it has been heard in the past. I beg to move.
11.16 p.m.
Lord Melchett: Perhaps I may briefly underline the point which my noble friend has raised about the possibility that the new regional committees which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, mentioned—I think for the first time at Second Reading—will cover both recreation and conservation interests. As my noble friend has said, the conservation bodies are not at all happy about this, not because recreation and conservation are in conflict or are unhappy bedfellows but because there is already a very well established working relationship between conservation bodies and water authorities at regional level. The consultations involve representatives of the Nature Conservancy Council, the County Naturalists' Trust (covered nationally by the Royal Society for Nature

207
Conservation) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Those three organisations have established together, voluntarily and statutorily, very good working relationships with water authorities at officer level.
There is a very strong feeling in all those organisations that the new proposal of the Government, if it destroyed the existing relationships, or replaced them or tried to run alongside them, would spoil something which is working reasonably well at the moment. This was recognised by the Government in yet another set of guidelines, issued following the Wildlife and Countryside Act as recently as 8th November of last year. Paragraph 10 of those guidelines says that the arrangements which I have described and which the Government recognise in the document provide a useful opportunity for water authorities to discuss their medium-term capital works programmes and annual maintenance schedules. The document goes on to say that, where necessary, site meetings are arranged. These are quite different sorts of consultation, with site meetings, a whole day being spent looking at a land drainage proposal, or whatever. It is quite a different sort of consultation from the kind that people with recreation interests would want to be involved in or would benefit from. The same will go for wildlife interests, where recreation issues are being discussed: how sailing facilities can be improved on a particular reservoir.
The Government have gone quite a long way to recognise one of the fears about the Bill in making the proposal the noble Lord has, and for my part, unlike the discussion on the consumer consultative committees under Lord Sandford's amendment, I would be quite happy if the Government could give us an assurance that the guidelines will say that there will have to be in every water authority—and it must be this definite or it will need amendment of the Bill itself, and I say that with the full backing of the people who have been involved in these meetings—separate committees at regional level, and that the committee dealing with conservation will build on the existing consultative arrangements the Government themselves have recognised as recently as November last year as working very well and providing great benefits to both sides. If the noble Lord can say that now, or at Report stage, I think he will set a lot of minds at rest.
So far responses from the Government have not been nearly clearcut enough to allay these fears. I know the RSPB had a response either today or yesterday from the Government, and I honestly do not think it is enough. They must say definitely that they will, as it were, honour existing arrangements and ensure that at every water authority these two things are kept separate at regional level.
Baroness White: Other bodies also have similar arrangements to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. In Wales we have close relationships with the Welsh Water Authority on the part of the Council for National Parks, and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, of which I am a member. We certainly would not wish to have any disturbance in that kind of informal consultation, which is what it is at the moment.
208
The guidelines I have are published in October, not November; whether they are the same ones I am not quite clear; I think they are. Possibly I have a Welsh version published earlier than the English one. When we did have discussions relative to these guidelines, as recently as January of this year, with the Welsh Authority we found that there was considerable dubiety in their minds as to the interpretations of where their duty really lay in relation to Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which amends Section 22 of the principal Act. I found a semantic debate going on within the water authority, and I have the notes issued subsequent to our meeting, in which the chief scientist, who was present, said that the authority had yet to take a view on the interpretation of Section 48, as to whether conservation was to be considered as a duty, a function or purely an interest to be taken into account as appropriate. Even at this time of night it must be obvious that there is some slight difficulty when the water authority does not know what the guidelines really mean.
This was followed by a remark by the chairman of the Welsh Water Authority, that while there was great sympathy on the part of the authority, any proposals which required financing by the authority which were not statutorily required would be difficult to justify. If one looks at these guidelines, they appear to me to suggest functions, on the one hand, and take away any possible expenditure, on the other. I think it is too late at night to discuss what is a very important section of this Bill. I noticed that my noble friend did not refer to the second part of her amendment, in which it is suggested that it should be made a duty for the water authorities, in their annual reports which they are statutorily obliged to produce, to indicate the manner in which they have fulfilled their obligations under Section 48 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I think this would be an invaluable provision and I very much hope that it is one which the Government can accept.
11.25 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: We now get from the general, I suppose in a sense, to the specific although I have been at pains on the earlier amendments to point out that we are talking about two, or possible more, totally separate committees. I shall come to that in a moment. The consumer consultative committees are designed to deal with the broad policy and, as the noble Baroness said, the methods, costings, prices charged, local authority interests, and so on, of the water authorities themselves, However, the recreation and conservation committees, as I said—and I repeat—will be on a regional basis because we do not see that it is appropriate either to duplicate the Water Space Amenity Commission at the one end or to have them in such small units that they are sub-regional at the other end.
We amended Clause 7 in another place to make clear that in making their proposals to represent the interests of consumers water authorities should include those who are likely to use water or land associated with water. There is a specific reference now in Clause 7 to the duty of water authorities in respect of recreation. I should like to emphasise to the Committee that water authorities continue under

209
exactly the same duties as regards recreation, conservation and amenity as they have been under hitherto. There is no change at all. We shall amend the guidelines to be used under Clause 7 to secure that these committees are established. We do not, however, see the need to make them statutory as the amendment proposes. At the moment there is no reference in Clause 7 to committees.
Perhaps at this point I can comment on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, mentioned—the standing technical advisory committee on water quality. This is really not relevant to this amendment. We have decided however that where committees of this kind are doing a useful job they should be continued, either by the water industry itself or by the Department of the Environment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am not sure what the Minister means by "the water industry itself ". Does he mean the Chairmen's Association? What does " the water industry itself " mean?
Lord Skelmersdale: In this connection it would indeed mean the water authorities' Chairmen's Association or one of the water authorities nominated by it, whichever was appropriate. However, the point I seek to make is that whoever ends up doing it will not go out of existence if they are currently doing a useful job, which that particular committee is most certainly doing.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I do not want to keep on interrupting the noble Lord, but that is what we are trying to find out with the amendment. Where are all these different things going to? We know at present where they are; they are with the Water Space Amenity Commission or with the National Water Council. We want to know where they will go in the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: What I am trying to say to the noble Baroness is that this standing technical advisory committee on water quality has no relevance to consumer consultative committees.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: It might do.
Lord Skelmersdale: My understanding is that it does not, and there is no need for it to have such a relationship. It will be continued, but as a completely separate entity from the committees that we are discussing in this and previous amendments.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: All that I would say is that if one looks at the Hansard in the other place one sees that it was quite emphatically raised only last week by a Member of Parliament as a question regarding water purity.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether my noble friend could just confirm what he said or perhaps correct a point which I may have misheard. I thought that he started off his response to Amendment No. 34 by saying that we are dealing with two quite separate bodies, and I agreed with him there. There is the committee which is referred to in the amendment of
210
the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, which is to deal with recreation, sport and conservation, which the amendment would require to go on the face of the Bill. My noble friend then went on to resist that by saying that it would be dealt with otherwise and that it would be dealt with by amendments to the guidelines to Clause 7. But Clause 7 is not dealing with those committees; it is dealing with the consumer consultative committees. I wonder whether my noble friend can help me.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, I do agree that this is, on the face of it, confusing. The point is that, as my noble friend has just said, Clause 7 deals with consumer consultative committees. What I am saying, and the Government have been saying since, I think, the Committee stage in another place, is that there are various kinds of consumer and there are two sorts of consumers' committee—first, what I call the general consumer consultative committees, which I described just now to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and, secondly, the specific ones which are those on recreation and conservation, which up to as recently as, I think, the beginning of last week it was intended should be rolled together as one body. But I am now able to tell the Committee that we are considering with some urgency the points that have already been put to us this evening on whether in fact the recreation, amenity and conservation bodies are compatible.
Over and above that, I should make it clear that it is not intended that the Government's proposals should cut across existing arrangements which work satisfactorily to the various parties. If therefore there are existing links between conservationists, for example, and water authorities on specific conservation matters, the authorities and the organisations may well wish these to continue, and it is not the Government's intention to prevent that. Alternatively, the new committees may wish to make their own arrangements, such as the establishment of sub-committees for the separately identifiable interests of conservation.
This amendment again revolves around guidelines which, to use a rather unparliamentary expression, and indeed to paraphrase what I have already said, are up for grabs. In other words, they are under discussion at the moment. The matters that have been referred to this evening will of course be considered in a redrawing of the guidelines in a definitive method.
The noble Baroness—
Baroness Birk: All this consultation is going on and the guidelines are being considered. Will they be available certainly to members of the Committee who are interested before Report stage? How will it be possible to draw up amendments ready for Report unless we know quite definitely what are the intentions of the Government? I really must support what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about the two separate committees, which, with great respect, seem to have got a bit confused in the Government's mind as well.
Lord Melchett: I know that the noble Lord has just given way and I would be quite happy to sit down again if he would prefer it, but rather than ask him to make a second speech after he has finished this one,

211
may I say that he has responded to my point, I am afraid, in a way that is not adequate, as I see it? Indeed he repeated some phrases which I recognised from his Second Reading speech.
Since that time the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has written to the department and the department has written back. A point is being made about splitting these regional committees. Let us stick with regions, for Heavens sake! and regional committees, because that is what the amendment is about. I cannot think why anybody, least of all the Government, who want to get a move on should keep talking about the local consumer consultative committees in this amendment when they do not even come up and we have dealt with the matter. Anyway, let us stick with the regional committees which the Government proposed at Second Reading in this House would consist of recreation and conservation interests. The noble Lord used the phrase then—and he has again tonight—that this would not cut across existing consultative arrangements if they were working to the satisfaction of all parties, or if they existed.
As I have said tonight, the Government themselves issued a circular last November pointing to the arrangements which have been worked out between the three organisations on the conservation side—the RSPB, the RSNC or the local naturalist trusts—and the Nature Conservancy Council on the one hand, and regional water authority staff on the other. As I understand it, in almost all regional water authorities—although now it may be all—this arrangement works well, and the Government have recognised that in a circular.
It is not a question, with respect to the noble Lord, of coming back to your Lordships' House at this stage of the Bill and saying "If there are arrangements which work well and if people are satisfied with them, then they can continue". We are in a different ball game. There are these arrangements and they do work well—the Government said so in a circular last November. It seems to me that they ought to be able to come along now and say: "If that is the case, all right, we will amend what we said earlier in the debates on this Bill. There will be separate arrangements. We will not allow the Bill to be used as an excuse by some water authorities which were not very happy about these arrangements being established to scrap them or to go back to something". The arrangements have been established over a long period of time with a great deal of difficulty and negotiation in some cases, and it is seen as extremely important that they should continue—not because, let me stress, of any incompatability between conservation and recreation, but because conservationists want to consult about different things in different ways and in far greater detail. They want to go on site visits to look at areas where land drainage proposals are going to be made.
If people in the department and the Government cannot understand the point that has now been made several times, it really seems to me that we ought to think about writing it into the Bill. With respect to the noble Lord, he has not picked up the point that I am making. It is not a question of incompatability: it is a different type of exercise. It is working well in every regional water authority area. The Government have
212
recognised that in a circular that they themselves have issued. So it is not a question of saying: "If it is going all right, we will let it continue". They know that it is.
I really do think that it is not asking too much, if it cannot be done tonight, that the noble Lord should drop the form of words that he used on Second Reading and say,"We will take a fresh look at this". He should forget all this stuff about, "Well, if it is going okay, we will let it continue", which is not relevant to the argument, and then say, "We recognise these arrangements; they will continue to exist. They will not be duplicated or superseded by some other committee involving a much wider range of interests whose members want to talk about different things in different ways at different places".
Lord Sandford: I really must urge my noble friend to take that advice and also to make provision on the face of the Bill. It does confuse the matter enormously if he continues to suggest to the Committee, which I really do not think he meant to do, that what is contained in Amendment No. 34 plus the additional factors which are quite appropriately being introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—all of which require to be dealt with on a regional level corresponding to each regional water authority—can somehow be dealt with not on the face of the Bill, but by guidelines relating to Clause 7 which have to do with consumer consultative councils which, although we do not know as much as we want to know about them, we know are going to be organised on a divisional basis. They cannot possibly be dealt with in one and the same package.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am obviously not making myself in the least bit clear. The consumer consultative committees are totally separate from those committees that we are discussing at the moment. Those that we are discussing now will be on a regional basis, whereas the consumer consultative committees, as my noble friend has just said, will be in very much smaller local areas, which one might call either districts, sub-regional, or whatever.
Lord Sandford: Divisional.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, fine. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, perhaps I could have phrased my remarks more felicitously and instead of saying "if there are" existing links between conservation bodies and water authorities that work currently, the situation will not change, I should have said "where there are". I am sure the noble Lord will accept that not every rose in this particular garden is quite as beautiful as every other rose. In other words, there are occasions when things are not working quite satisfactorily. However, the Government do not propose to change things which are working well. I hope that that makes the point absolutely clear.
Lord Melchett: It is late at night and we want to get on, but, with respect, I really think that the noble Lord ought to agree to take this away. The fact is that the Government issued guidelines—these infamous guidelines—from another Bill last November, which said at paragraph 10—and I shall quote again to the noble Lord because this is the important point:
"Consultation procedures.
So far as nature conservation is concerned, established patterns of consultation already exist between most water authorities and

213
the NCC and voluntary nature conservation bodies through regional-divisional liaison meetings. These provide a useful opportunity for water authorities to discuss their medium-term capital works programmes and annual maintenance schedules. Where necessary, these existing arrangements should be improved so as to ensure that any proposed works with a significant implication for nature conservation can be identified well in advance. Where appropriate site visits should take place"—
and so on. There are established procedures which the Government have recognised and which, as I understand it, have the full support of the Nature Conservancy Council and certainly of the two royal nature conservation societies, the RSPB and the RSNC, who are involved.
The particular arrangements do not involve anybody else on the nature conservation side; just those three organisations are involved. There are others which the circular covers for amenity and landscape; I say that because I hear my noble friend Lady White making noises, if she will forgive the expression. But the point I am making is that these consultation procedures on nature conservation work well and are established. If not dealing with this tonight, then at least the Government really must go away without any 'ifs' and 'buts' and think about it and be prepared to say, " Yes, we realise these are arrangements which exist; they are working well; nothing in the new regional committees will be allowed to disturb these in any way at all ". It may be that these arrangements can have a regional committee for nature conservation on top of them; it may be that that is not necessary. I am quite happy to leave that to the Government. But they really must be prepared to say not just that where it is working all right they will let it continue, but that these arrangements for all water authorities do work well and they will continue. There is a very important difference.
Lord Howie of Troon: Will the noble Lord the Minister not have mercy on us and just give an undertaking to take all this away and take a very quiet, restrained look at it, and, in so far as there is strength in the representations of my noble friend Lord Melchett and others, he will accede to these, and in so far as what they think is strength is weakness, he will reject them? I think that that might help us quite a hit.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful for the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, but I was, I hope, in the process of making it quite clear that there was nothing in Clause 7 to stop the existing arrangements. I hope that this goes as far as even the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would like me to go. They will continue. Having said that, I will most certainly consider the point.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am not satisfied with the remarks that the noble Lord has made. I am even more muddled now that he has finished than I was when he started. I thought I had it clear in my mind. Because of the lateness of the hour it is important for us to get on. I know that my noble friend Lord Melchett has spoken about the field of conservation. But there are all kinds of sport that go on now, and their interests are equally important because they will clash on many occasions with those of the conservationists.
214
Angling, water skiing, and all such sports might affect the conservationists at some time.
I shall read what the noble Lord has said, but I hope that any information that the Government can give us concerning guidelines or anything else will be forthcoming so that at the Report stage we shall be able to understand the implications of the Government's measures, including the abolition of WASAC, and the National Water Council. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 34A:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Minutes to be open to inspection.
The minutes of proceedings of a water authority shall be open to the inspection of any local government elector and any local government elector may make a copy of an extract from the minutes.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and returns to the question of the publicity of the proceedings of the water authorities. I have abandoned, at any rate for the time being, the attempt to persuade the Government to in any way alter the integrity of these new bodies which have their own particular form and functions. I am not entirely certain that I accept the arguments. What I should like to do is to explore the situation where, accepting the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the first part of this Committee stage, we managed to establish as much of the openness of the work of the committee as we could, and its openness to electors, ratepayers and those who are paying water rates.
To that end I have tabled the clause, which many people will recognise—and not least the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin—as being the first part of Section 228 of the Local Government Act 1972. The object of the exercise is not that these would necessarily be exactly the right words to put into this Bill, but that if it was acceptable to the Government that some kind of procedure along the lines of Section 228 of the 1972 Act, the inspection of documents, should be put in the Bill, that possibly the Government would take the amendment away and see whether this was the right way of dealing with the matter and perhaps expand it to have all the provisions of the section in the Bill. Perhaps it could be so altered that it did not necessarily refer to local government electors.
What I wish to discover now is whether the Government will accept that ordinary members of the public who pay their water rates have a right of access to the proceedings of the local water authority whence they can proceed to seek publicity, write to the papers, and be in touch with all the local committees we have been discussing for the last hour or so. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I am not without sympathy to what the noble Lord has just said. The Government are not in the business of concealing what the water authorities are doing. It is just as important that the public have access to information about the authorities' decisions in the future as at the present. Perhaps I could quickly outline what we are doing to secure the objective.

215
As your Lordships may recall from our discussions about the press and the public, we intend that the press shall receive advance information about the items under discussion at board meetings and, following the meetings, there will be, as a matter of routine, press conferences. As part of this arrangement, we have decided to require the water authorities to produce a note of the decisions reached on the various items under discussion, and this note will be available to the press and will also be available, as the minutes are now, for inspection by the public. The same note will be issued to the consumer consultative committees. We will be requiring the water authorities to implement these arrangements when we issue a revised version of the guidelines on consumer representation.
Given that the proposals are not identical to what is proposed in the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, fairly said, that was not the major part of what he was seeking to ascertain. As my noble friend said earlier, it is difficult at this hour to go into detail. But if the noble Lord wants to know our intentions, I am equally anxious that they should be understood. I suggest that there is no major difference between us on this; there may be a difference of emphasis, and perhaps of degree, at the end of the day, but basically we are in the business of seeing that information is available. What concerned us so much on the previous matter was the ability of the committee to function in a different style from the way the local government one did, but we need not go into all that again now. Outside of that—outside the executive style of the boards—we are indeed anxious that there should be the maximum information in the best possible way. I shall not, unless I am pressed, go into more detail on that now, but I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord. I repeat, I feel that on this point there is not much between us. Indeed, I go further and say that any suggestions that are made would be welcome.
Baroness Birk: I understood the Minister to say that there would be a report of the minutes of the proceedings. A report of minutes is quite different from the minutes themselves; a report, as I understand it, would be an edited version. Or have I misunderstood the noble Lord?
Lord Bellwin: I said there would be a note of the proceedings.
Baroness Birk: Anote is not the same. Does he mean the actual minutes will be repeated? Otherwise a note could mean a selective version.
Lord Bellwin: Perhaps this is a matter we should discuss. We have an open mind on it because we agree it is important. The noble Baroness will appreciate that minutes can be written in all sorts of ways.
Baroness Birk: Exactly.
Lord Bellwin: Indeed, and it will not be easy to get an exact clarification, because it is something that needs to be in the Bill; I accept that. Perhaps we can pursue the matter, and the noble Baroness will not find the Government unwilling to consider it.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the Minister for his remarks. His opening statement about the relationship of the authorities with the press was one of the few cheerful things we have heard this evening. I thank him for outlining the intentions of the Government, which I hope have been sharpened during our debates. I shall not pretend that the whole thing is nearly as satisfactory as it should be, but I think the Government are trying to do the best they can in the entrenched position that they have adopted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 34B:
After Clause 8, insert the following clause
"Amendment of Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930.
( .—(1) The Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 shall have effect with the following amendments.
(2) For section 1 there shall be substituted section 6 of the Reservoirs Act 1975, and after that section there shall be inserted, as section 1A, 1B and 1C, sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Reservoirs Act 1975.
(3) For section 2 there shall be substituted section 10 of the Reservoirs Act 1975.
(4) For section 5 there shall be substituted section 22 of the Reservoirs Act 1975.")
The noble Lord said: Both this amendment and No. 34C are probing amendments, and I hope that the Government will regard them exactly in that light and will not investigate the drafting of them, since they are drafted entirely as probing amendments. The inadequacies of the drafting are clear to me and to the Public Bill Office, and I do not think that there is any need to go into that at all. They indicate a direction in which the Government's mind might go, if they feel so inclined.
The amendments follow intimations that I gave at the Second Reading of the Bill, in the light of the report of the Select Committee on the water industry, which I think came out before Christmas—or at least some little while ago. I should like to make a slight correction to my Second Reading speech, if this is the right place in which to do so. I notice that at the top line of column 1058 of the Official Report I am attributed with referring to "Keynesian Ministers". I should be extremely happy if there were any Keynesian Ministers to be seen, but what I in fact said at the time was "changing Ministers", which is quite different; it means something entirely different.
Leaving that point aside, what we are dealing with here is the means of controlling the design, construction, inspection and so on of reservoirs. It arises under the Bill because it deals with water, and because the Select Committee had suggested that the Bill was an appropriate place to deal with the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the most recent legislation on the safety of reservoirs. It is the most recent legislation in the historical sense, but in another sense it is not, because it has not been implemented; so it is not recent at all. This is rather sad.
The history is laid out in my Second Reading speech, and so I shall not dwell on it, and it is laid out much more elegantly, and in Much more detail, in the Select Committee's report; but basically it is as

217
follows. The control of these elements of reservoir design rests in the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930. That was by no means a hurried Act, because although it came after one or two accidents in the 'twenties, it followed somewhat belatedly after a Royal Commission report in the 1860s. That report had been neglected; the disasters of the 1920s drew it to people's minds, and the 1930 Act followed.
In the period since 1930 those civil engineers and others who had been operating the Act came to believe that it was inadequate for their purpose and in 1966 the Institution of Civil Engineers reported on the functioning of the Act and suggested a number of ways in which it could be improved. Arising from that report, the Government produced the 1975 Act. What I have to say specifically is this. The 1975 Act was supported by both sides of the House. I see sitting in the Chamber this evening my noble friend Lady Birk who, throughout the Committee and Report stages of the Bill carried on a dialogue with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whom I saw earlier this evening and who, for quite understandable reasons, is not present at the moment. These two noble Baronesses discussed the Bill in total amity and in agreement that it was necessary. In the end it was passed. It was not implemented, and for the feeblest of all reasons; that is, that successive Governments—and I blame no particular party here, for all parties are to blame—thought that it was too expensive to put it into operation. That is the only reason why the Act has not been put into operation.
The Select Committee studied the matter and took evidence from engineers, who had been trying to operate reservoirs under the 1930 Act. Almost without exception, they found that engineers thought the 1975 Act ought to be implemented. The only people who did not think so were the Government, who did not want to spend the money, a number of local authority politicians who did not want to spend the money, either, and a very small number of engineers, an insignificant number.
It is quite clear from the evidence presented to the Select Committee that the 1930 Act is not up to the job and that the 1975 Act ought to be implemented. The Select Committee suggested that amendments to (they said) the 1975 Act ought to be brought in under this Bill. They chose this Bill merely because it was convenient, because it was there, because it was a way in which the thing could be done now instead of waiting until Heaven knows when, when people thought they might find time.
My amendments do not tackle it in the same way as the Select Committee. I have suggested, first, that the 1970 Act ought to be repealed. I do not believe that at all. What I wonder is this. The Government have suggested that the 1930 Act is adequate. If the Government are right and the 1930 Act is adequate, then the 1975 Act is unnecessary and ought to be repealed. If it is unnecessary, it encumbers the statute book and ought to go. I do not believe that. I want the Government to tell me how it comes about that, on the one hand, the 1930 Act is adequate and, at the same time, the 1975 Act remains on the statute book unimplemented. That is all I want to know there.
If the Government do not wish to implement the 1975 Act in its entirety, then I suggest in Amendment No 34B no more than the bare bones of a way in which the Government might go about it. They might take the 1930 Act and delete from it such parts as are inadequate for their purpose and put into the 1930 Act such parts of the 1975 Act which would bring the 1930 Act up to date and make it a reasonable and usable piece of legislation. That is all I have to say to the Government. I wish them to explain why they do not want the 1975 Act in operation. What else could there be which makes them think that the heavily criticised 1930 Act is adequate, and what ought they to do about it? Unless the Minister is in a condition of alarm and despondency, I do not intend to divide the Committee.
Baroness White: I make no apology for rising even at this late hour. It is because this Bill has been inadequately thought through. This was made plain on Second Reading. It is a matter of complete astonishment that this particular issue has not been dealt with in this piece of legislation. My personal view is that it would be better, when we have heard what the noble Lord the Minister has had to say, for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment so that we can have a proper debate at a reasonble hour on Report. I see that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is rising to his feet.
Lord Denham: I thought the noble Baroness was suggesting that we were at an unreasonable hour. We have taken quite a lot of time in discussing previous amendments and some of them have been moved at very great length. That is why the hour is not as reasonable as it might be.
Baroness White: I repeat my charge to the Government that it is because the Bill has been inadequately thought through in the first place. There are lacunae in this Bill which ought never to have occurred.
There is one matter which I should have thought would have caused shame to all of us. We have an Act which has been on the statute book now for almost eight years which has not been implemented in any way at all. This is surely something which, as legislators, we should feel ashamed of. It is utterly unprofessional to have legislation completely unimplemented remaining on the statute book. We have an opportunity in a Bill which is certainly germane, but apparently no effort has been made by the Government to deal with an issue of which all of us concerned with these things are perfectly well aware and which all of us, I believe, feel should be properly tidied up.
We devoted a chapter of the report of the Select Committee to this issue and made it quite clear. The committee considered that positive enforcement duties, such as proposed in the 1975 Act, should be brought into effect. I could quote various other passages.
I feel that it is not reasonable at this time to go into great detail. We should seek another occasion, and we shall certainly do so at Report stage, so that we can have a sensible discussion on an issue which ought to have been tackled by the Government in this legislation and which they show no sign whatever of

219
facing. It is not exclusively the Government's fault. The dilatoriness applied to the previous Administration too, but as parliamentarians we ought to take this matter rather more seriously.
12.7 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I would not dream of taking it anything but seriously, especially after the remarks of the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is about to provide the Government with the opportunity to respond positively to the conclusion of your Lordship's Select Committee that the Reservoirs Act 1975 should not be left on the statute book unimplemented.
I should perhaps first point out to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that the Reservoirs Act 1975 differs from the Act of 1930 in many respects. The key provisions are first that it would make county councils in England and Wales and regional councils in Scotland, not district councils, responsible for enforcement and gives them an explicit duty of enforcement rather than a power. These enforcement authorities are required to keep registers of reservoirs in their area, and are given powers to satisfy themselves that the Act is being complied with. Secondly, the 1975 Act requires reservoir owners to appoint a named supervising engineer to keep a reservoir under continual supervision between inspections. Thirdly, reservoir undertakers are required to furnish information to enforcement authorities so that they can effectively ensure that the Act's essentail provisions are complied with.
It is a severe weakness in the 1930 Act that the public authorities concerned have powers, but not duties of enforcement, as the noble Lord has told us. Therefore, it is clear to the Government that a more effective system of securing reservoir safety must place a clear duty of enforcement on some responsible authority. Next, if enforcement is to be active, there must be a clear duty on reservoir undertakers not only to take the necessary measures for safety's sake, but also to provide necessary information to the enforcement authority. In terms of the 1975 Act, this requires bringing into effect parts of Section 2 of that Act, and of Section 21. These seem of greater priority than the replacement of the 1930 Act's provisions in relation to inspection by those of the 1975 Act; or than the creation of a new criminal offence.
Accordingly, I am able to tell the House today that the Government's decision is that the time has come to implement the 1975 Act, phasing its introduction so that an early contribution is made to reservoir safety, and so that adequate data are available to local authorities to carry out their enforcement function. This is an important decision, affecting many interests—reservoir owners and undertakers, local authorities, and others. The practical implications need to be considered, and therefore appropriate consultation will be carried out on the timing and nature of the implementation of the 1975 Act.
The Government wish to emphasise that in their view most importance should be attached to ensuring that all reservoirs are inspected as provided for in the Act; it is the large number of reservoirs for which no one appears to take responsibility which gives rise to the greatest concern; so we envisage that consideration
220
will be given later to the implementation of the provision for routine supervision between major inspections.
I could continue in this vein for several more minutes, but I do not think it is appropriate. I hope the Committee will accept that I am doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, and your Lordship's Select Committee wanted, at least in this respect.
Baroness White: I suppose we should be grateful to the Minister even at ten past midnight-not exactly the most appropriate hour to announce a decision which is welcome in itself and of which I think I am right in saying that we were given no warning at Second Reading. However, one only hopes that this good intention will be turned into actuality during the currency of the present Administration and that it will not then be upset should there be a change in the Administration in the relatively near future.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am rather glad I stayed! Did I understand the Minister to say that he intended to implement the 1975 Act? If so, can he tell me when? I know it is churlish to look a gift horse in any part of its anatomy, but let me say this: if the Minister does in fact intend to implement the 1975 Act and to implement it within a reasonable time, it would satisfy me entirely if he were to write to me. I would make sure that his letter was published in The New Civil Engineer magazine, where it will be read by all those engineers who worry about these things. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34C, 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions substituted for Part I of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1973]:
12.13 a.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) A water authority shall join with other water authorities in making arrangements for the co-ordination at national level of the following matters—

(a) the provision of training,

(b) carrying out negotiations relating to the conditions of employment of persons employed by them,

(c) safety regulations and practices, and

(d) the provision of pensions and superannuation arrangements for their employees.")

The noble Baroness said: This again is a probing amendment. We are concerned over what will replace the central joint negotiating machinery for workers inside the water industry. We are concerned that the break-up of the Water Council might be regarded as an opportunity to move away from pay bargaining at the centre and move it down to the regions. The part about negotiations, conditions of employment and the persons employed by them is important to us, and we want to know where the new arrangements envisaged in the Bill will go.
On training provisions, has the Minister anything further to tell us? I accept of course that the water

221
authorities will be considering appropriate regional training, but does the Minister accept that there is a need for central training where the mixed disciplines at senior staff and management levels are quite justified? Will he be able to tell us any information tonight regarding the establishment of the new limited company that was talked about in the other place at Report stage, which might be taking over the training assets of the National Water Council?
Safety regulations and practices are important and we need to know where they will go because there is concern at the moment that the authorities are trying to cut corners to save finance. That is something which is important to us, and we want to know where the safety regulations and practices will be going. We have already touched on pensions and superannuation arrangements, so I shall not mention them. Those are the points that I particularly want to draw to the attention of the Minister and I shall be glad if he can elucidate. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have already covered a good deal of the ground in this amendment on Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, which seems a long time ago. But, nonetheless, we did. As my noble friend Lord Bellwin and I have explained on various occasions during the course of the evening, the water authority chairmen have agreed to establish a water authorities' association. The purposes of this association are to be as follows.
First, it is to be an organisation for water authorities to discuss among themselves, and with representatives of Government and other bodies, any matters relating to the water authorities, their functions, powers, duties and so on; secondly, to co-ordinate any necessary joint action on the part of the industry; thirdly, to act as trustee or administrator in relation to pensions schemes established for the industry; fourthly, to provide public relations and public information services; fifthly, to examine the need for research and to promote research where necessary; and, sixthly, to encourage training and education, although there will be separate arrangements to establish a water industry training association.
The Committee will note that what the noble Baroness is asking for in this amendment is already explicitly covered, or capable of being covered, under one of the broad categories which I have just mentioned.
We have already debated the future of negotiations on pay and conditions of service, and the new pension arrangements for the water industry, and I do not think it would be appropriate at this late hour to say any more on those subjects. Training is undoubtedly an important function for the water industry employers, and the Government are encouraged that the chairmen have agreed to establish a water industry training association, to which the noble Baroness referred, which will make central provision for training in the water industry.
We are aware of feelings in the water industry that the provision of training by the National Water Council—and training is one of the Council's statutory functions at the moment—has been on a rather more lavish scale than is always appropriate. In particular,
222
there has been criticism, not only within the industry but also from the Manpower Services Commission, that training has been supply led rather than demand led. In other words, there has been insufficient attention at the local level to determining what the training needs are and building courses around them. This approach has been reinforced by the system of financing the National Water Council's training activity; a system of levies and grants for the most part.
These are generalisations, and I am aware that they are not the whole story. Nevertheless, they underline the problems of establishing statutory bodies to carry out work such as training. The body will exist, come what may; and, in particular, it will exist whether or not it is providing exactly the service which is required.
The water industry training association will be a company limited by guarantee. The water authorities will still be obliged to provide training for their staff—there will still be a statutory requirement—and they will still be obliged to conform with general legislation on safety regulations and practices. Indeed, much of what I have been saying about training is relevant to safety procedures, since many of the courses provided by the National Water Council deal with safety matters. There will be a continuing need for such courses. The water authorities will still wish to provide them, whether centrally, or, as happens to a considerable extent already, at the local level.
As the Committee will have gathered, we do not feel that there is a need for a statutory body or fresh statutory requirements in connection with any of the functions mentioned in this amendment. One of the difficulties with statutory requirements for coordination, such as is proposed here, is that they lead to an inevitable growth in bureaucracy. The essence of our proposals is to let the water authorities, who are the paymasters and have all the relevant functional responsibilities, decide on the level of central activity required. There will be economies to be made—substantial economies—and we must not allow the scope for such economies to be dissipated by amendments such as the one currently proposed. I took the point which the noble Baroness made about this being a probing amendment. I am not sure whether she considers she has probed far enough. Perhaps she will let us know.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I thank the noble Lord for that information. He said " capable of being covered " as well as " being covered ". Certain matters have not yet, presumably, been defined, and they are capable of being covered. I shall read what the noble Lord has said in reply. It is an important issue. When the Bill becomes an Act and these guidelines and details are set down, will the names of the chairmen of the water authorities be announced and also the names of the chairmen of the committees? Everybody knew that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was the chairman of the National Water Council. If people know who is the chairman of X, Y or Z, they can make approaches at that level, if desired.
Lord Skelmersdale: Whether this would be appropriate generally, as in the case of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is absent at this late

223
hour, or whether the regional water authorities and district committees would have that information circulated generally in their own areas, I shall have to consider. But most certainly I take the point which the noble Baroness has made.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 38 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 39.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to dissolution of National Water Council and Water Space Amenity Commission]:
12.22 a.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford Lord Irving of Dartford moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 14, leave out from (" but ") to end of line 17 and insert—

(" (a) it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that an offer of employment to commence not later than the day following the date of the Council ceasing to exist, is made by a water authority or other employer to each person who is an employee of the Council on the passing of this Act; and the terms of each such offer must be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date when the offer is made;

(b) an offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is made; and ")

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Fisher and I have put down six amendments. With the agreement of the Committee, I beg to move Amendment No. 38 and I shall speak to the other amendments at the same time. They concern matters of great importance. The amendments deal with matters of interest to employees regarding the continuation of their employment and the terms of that employment. They also cover important related matters. The Minister in another place was unable to comment on most them because they were still being negotiated. Tonight I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to say something about them and that he will accept the amendments.
Amendment No. 38 is self-explanatory. It is designed to protect employment after the cessation of the National Water Council. Amendment No. 39 is designed to ensure the transfer of National Water Council staff to the bodies which will respectively take over the National Water Council's functions. It is designed in any event to ensure that every member of the staff who wants it will have employment after dissolution. The amendment does not preclude voluntary severance or early retirement, arrangements for which will still be made by the National Water Council before it is wound up. It would also have the effect of preserving continuity of employment for employment protection Act purposes, because a transfer under it would probably satisfy the requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 13 to the Employment
224
Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. A general provision relating to continous employment is set out in another of our amendments.
The Bill, as drawn, will simply consign the entire National Water Council workforce to unemployment, leaving each employee to make such efforts as are possible in the present economic climate to find a job elsewhere. The Bill gives no guarantee whatever that any such persons will obtain a job with a water authority or a new representative body of authorities, and it is simply unheard of for public servants to be treated in this way when their employer created by statute is abolished by statute. Parliament is free to create and abolish public bodies as it thinks fit but must surely recognise its obligation to employees who in good faith have entered the public service without expecting to be dropped into unemployment at parliamentary will.
The amendments are inspired by Section 255 of the Local Government Act 1972 and also by paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1892. During Report stage in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said, on the subject of staffing levels after abolition of the National Water Council, that the abolute numbers to be employed centrally will be significantly fewer than those employed currently in the National Water Council, although he nodded when Mr Denis Howell expressed the hope that natural wastage would be used and jobs found for people who had served the industry well and whose livelihood is in jeopardy. The position remains that the jobs and livelihoods of these public servants will disappear on the dissolution of their employer, and, unless the Bill is amended, they will have no protection at all. I hope the Committee will realise how important and how necessary this amendment is.
Amendment No. 40 is consequential on acceptance of Amendment No. 38. No. 41 should be self-explanatory, althought it is not quite as simple as would perhaps appear. It is relevant and necessary whether or not the two previous amendments in regard to transfer or offer of employment are successful. In the consultation paper (paragraph 39) it is said that the National Water Council staff re-employed by another employer in the undustry shall be regarded as having continuity of employment for the purpose of the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978. I venture to ask, by whom will they be so regarded? Probably not by an industrial tribunal in the event of a subsequent claim for unfair dismissal, because paragraph 17 of Schedule 13 to the Act refers to transfer of an undertaking (or part of it) from one employer to another, or statutory modification of a contract of empolyment. The dissolution of the National Water Council will have neither of those two effects, so continuity may not be preserved unless specific provision is made for it in the Bill.
This amendment is important for safeguarding rights in the event of dismissal, particularly as to the qualifying period for eligibility to apply to an industrial tribunal and in the event of a finding of unfair dismissal. If the correct provision is not made in the Bill, there could be a risk for up to about twenty years of adverse effect on the basic award due to someone who is subsequently unfairly dismissed.
Amendment No. 42 concerns the transfer of staff whose terms and conditions after transfer are the same as before. This sub-paragraph is enabling only. It seems logical to include contracts of employment in the enabling provision in case it should be necessary or appropriate in due course to use this sub-paragraph in relation to contracts of employment. Amendment No. 43 is designed to ensure that any new association, company or other organisation that might be set up to do some or all of the work now done by the National Water Council will make pension arrangements for staff no less favourable than the scheme applicable to water authority employees. It may be that such provision is already envisaged by the existing subparagraphs of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, but they appear not to go far enough and we wish to be in no doubt that suitable pension arrangements will be made.
On 18th January, the Under-Secretary, Mr Shaw, said in another place that administration of the water industry pension fund would pass to the Yorkshire Water Authority and the machinery for payment of pensions would be preserved intact. That is all very well in relation to staff of existing water industry employers, but no guarantee has been given that a new body, presumably an association of water authorities, and/or a limited company or several of them, will make the same pension provision for their staffs. If pension provisions by a newly created employer are not the same, staff will run the risk of losing heavily on transfer to it from the local government scheme, which is the scheme currently applied to staff of water authorities and the National Water Council, or earning significantly worse benefits from their future service with the new employer than they have earned to date in the water industry. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with such important matters so late at night, but I nevertheless hope that the Minister will be able to give an adequate reply.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall certainly do my best. We very much appreciate the concern expressed by these amendments and I hope that your Lordships will agree that what I have to say will allay at least some of that concern. However, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 38. Its purpose is to secure continuity of employment for all National Water Council employees. We believe—and this is important—that some considerable economies in staff and resources will be made by the Bill.
As I have already explained, we envisage the need for some functions of the National Water Council to be continued centrally. However, economies and improvements in efficiency are part of the reason for our proposals and we cannot, therefore, accept this amendment. I should add that Mr. Len Hill, Chairman of the Chairmen's Industry Committee, has advised that in the proposed new Water Authorities' Association all posts except that of the secretary will be protected for existing National Water Council staff, so long as they are suitable.
The National Water Council is a party to the water industry's generous 1977 scheme for the payment of compensation on severance. This compensation is in addition to redundancy payments payable under
226
employment protection legislation. Under the water industry's 1977 scheme the employer pays compensation where an employee is made redundant, provided that he has not unreasonably refused a reasonable offer of alternative employment within the water industry. What is a reasonable offer would be a matter for consideration in the light of particular circumstances. But if the terms offered were much less favourable than those currently enjoyed by the employee I would not expect this to be regarded as reasonable. Staff will also have the protection afforded by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, to which the noble Lord has already referred.
As I understand it, Amendment No. 40 is consequential on Amendment No. 38. I am advised that Amendment No. 41 is unnecessary. The 1978 Act operates on the basis that either there is a break in someone's employment, in which case questions of compensation arise, or there is not, in which case they do not arise.
In our view, any of the operations of the National Water Council which are transferred in whole or in part to some other organisation—be it a water authority or, say, the proposed Water Authorities' Association—are likely to represent the transfer of a business, or part of a business, within the terms of Section 94 of the 1978 Act. In these circumstances, continuity of employment would be preserved, provided that the new employer made job offers to the staff before dismissals by the National Water Council took effect and provided that employment with the new employer began within four weeks of that date.
As for Amendment No. 42, I can assure the noble Lords that the exclusion of contracts of employment from the agreements to which sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4 applies does not in any way adversely affect the interests of staff. I think that is something that particularly concerns the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford.
This particular sub-paragraph is concerned with the possible need to clarify the construction of references in agreements to which the council are a party where rights and liabilities arising from those agreements are transferred to a water authority or other body. References to the council in such agreements could need to be treated as references to the body to which the rights or liabilities are transferred.
In the case of contracts of employment, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to transfer to a water authority or other body any liabilities of the council which may remain. There may, for example, be a claim against the council for compensation for an industrial injury. We consider that the proper course is for the Secretary of State to assume any such rights and liabilities of the council which may arise under contracts of employment. We have provided for this in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 3 of Schedule 2.
We do not propose, therefore, that any order under subsection (4) of Clause 3 should transfer any rights and liabilities in relation to contracts of employment to a water authority or other body. The purpose of the words to which this amendment relates is simply to make this exclusion clear in relation to sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 4, which is concerned with consequential provisions in cases where rights and

227
liabilities under other types of agreement may be transferred.
Finally there is the question of superannuation for those who become employees of bodies established as a consequence of this Bill. This is Amendment No. 43. As I said at the beginning, I share the concern of noble Lords that the staff should be fairly treated and I am sure that proper pension provision will be made by these bodies. I expect that any new bodies established would wish to bring their employees within the same superannuation arrangements as apply to staff in the water industry.
If any bodies established as a consequence of this Bill did not come within the criteria in the present regulations for " admitted bodies " under the local government superannuation scheme, my right honourable friend would propose amendments to those regulations in order to bring the new bodies within scope. It would then be for those new bodies to negotiate an admission agreement, which I would expect to be with the administering authority for the water industry pension fund.
In the medium term, I understand that the water authorities intend to set up their own pension arrangements, independent of the local government scheme, under Section 27 of the Water Act 1973. The Bill will require that no arrangements of this kind can be established without the Secretary of State's consent—that is achieved by paragraph 7(2) of the schedule—and I can assure the Committee that he would not give consent unless the position of employees of any bodies of the kind under discussion was adequately safeguarded.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, will accept the Government's view that the proposed amendments are neither necessary nor in this case appropriate. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the noble Lord will not seek to probe too much further at this late hour.
Lord Irving of Dartford: I think that the noble Lord will understand if we find the answer to Amendment No. 38 wholly unacceptable. The other matters are, as I think that he will agree, matters of great complexity. He would, I am sure, wish to allow us to have time to examine his reply in some detail and perhaps come back at another stage. In view of that statement, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals and Revocations]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 19, line 17, column 3, at end insert ("In section 17(5) the words "under section 6 above".")
The noble Lord said: This is a very minor amendment. One of the provisions of the Bill is to repeal Section 6 of the Water Act 1973. Section 6 is unnecessary because water authorities will have a free hand in making arrangements for their functions to be discharged—whether by committees, joint committees, officers and so on; there is no need for any express provision on the subject. Since Section 6 is being repealed, a reference to it in Section 17(5), which deals with maintaining the standards of our rivers, is also redundant and should be repealed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before one o'clock.