HL Deb 06 June 1989 vol 508 cc725-43

3 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 11, at end insert— ("(1A) The functions assigned to the Authority shall include responsibility for the prevention and reduction of pollution in or arising from controlled waters in England and Wales (including coastal waters and adjacent relevant territorial waters) in accordance with the provisions of this Part and Part III below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the Water Bill after a very short gap which I hope has been enjoyable as well as profitable for your Lordships in all parts of the House. We return at once to what is recognised by everybody to be one of the most important issues facing this country; that hall apply to is, the question of water quality. I refer not so much to drinking water because that issue, if by no means resolved, was debated to some effect by your Lordships' Committee but raClause 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 11, at end insert— ("(1A) The functions assigned to the Authority shall include rent to our beaches.

Your Lordships' Committee decided last month that it was appropriate to have on the face of the Bill a commitment that the Government have a timetable for adhering to European Community directives on the quality of drinking water. The purpose of today's amendment is to secure that the Government have an obligation to conform with any relevant directive of the European Community on the quality of water used for bathing and other forms of recreation. In introducing this amendment, I should have said that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 71 which covers the point to which I have just referred.

The Bill, as amended in Committee and following its passage through another place, still contains no clear statement of the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority for the control of pollution. Such a general statement of its obligation should appear in Part I of the Bill. A general statement in respect of its recreational and environmental obligations does appear. It was the subject of considerable debate in Committee and no doubt will be the subject of further debate on Report. To balance that very proper general statement of environmental and recreational obligations there should be a general statement of the obligations of. The purpose of today's amendment is to secure that the Government have an obligation to conform with any relevant directive of the European Community on the quality of water used for bathing and other forms of recreation. In introducing this amendment, I should have said that I am also speaking to Amendment No. 71 which covers the point to which I have just referred.

The Bill, as amended in Committee and following its passage through another place, still contains no clear statement of the responsitract an incurable disease. The stench from those rivers is such that one cannot build anywhere near them. As I say, this is not an academic or legalistic point but a point of such seriousness that it deserves the same kind of consideration which the Bill properly gives to other environmental factors.

As the Bill stands it is almost impossible to say that the NRA has any clear and unambiguous duty to prevent and reduce pollution. I say "reduce pollution" deliberately because the situation in many of the waters for which the National Rivers Authority will be responsible is such that the reduction of pollution is absolutely essential. There is a curious and apparently ill-thought-out division of responsibility between the Secretary of State and the National Rivers Authority. The Secretary of State has responsibility for classifying rivers and setting water quality objectives but the National Rivers Authority produces the environmental codes and has all the responsibilities under Clause 8 of protecting and promoting the environment and recreation. What is never clear is a single point where the buck stops. That is what Amendment No. 1 provides. The amendment is also an essential precondition of Amendment No. 71 which requires that the National Rivers Authority shall have responsibility for, the maintenance and improvement in accordance with any relevant Directive of the European Community of the quality of waters used for bathing and other forms of recreation".

We know that there has been a letter from the European Environment Commissioner to the Government threatening to take action on some of our beaches. I have not seen the letter. I should be grateful if the Minister in replying could tell us what it contains. I understand that unless something drastic is done about beaches at Southport, Formby and Blackpool, action will be taken against the British Government. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether that is the case and whether there are other beaches against which action is threatened by the European Community.

Many figures have been floating around in the past 36 hours about the quality of our beaches. There has been correspondence between my honourable friend Dr. Cunningham and the Minister for water in another place. I have had the pleasure of reading the letter from Mr. Howard to Dr. Cunningham. I do not believe that its tone is appropriate to be read in the civilised surroundings of your Lordships' House. Clearly, what Dr. Cunningham said at his press conference yesterday has touched the Government very much on the raw. They are aware that something drastic has to be done; even Mr. Howard recognises that towards the end of his extended vituperation.

We have evidence that the beaches of this country fail to reach the standards of the European directives. In some cases the figures are very good. For example, in Yorkshire only 5 per cent. of beaches fail to reach the European Community directive standard. That means in fact only one beach. However, in the North-West there are 27 beaches which have failed; and that means that 82 per cent. of beaches failed to reach the standard. The figures cover a whole range. Admittedly there are very few beaches concerned. The Thames Water Authority has two beaches and both have failed to reach the European Community directive standard.

The Minister of State for water yesterday took great pride in announcing this year's blue flag scheme for clean beaches. Let us be clear: clean beaches includes the cleanliness of the beach from litter, which is the responsibility of local authorities, as well as the cleanliness of the water. Therefore it is not a simple case of the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. The situation is that a very low proportion indeed of our beaches qualified for the European blue flag, and the director of the blue flag scheme has said that if the new standards which have been announced by the European Commission are imposed none of our beaches will qualify for the blue flag next year. Therefore there cannot be any doubt that there is much more work to be done on improving the quality of our river water and inhe particular improving the quality of our bathing water.

I could go on at some length about the dispute on the use of outfalls into the sea for the disposal of raw sewage. The Government seem to think that provided there is a long outfall there is no real problem. Mr. Howard seems to think that unless water is so evidently disgusting that you would not want to swim in it, it is perfectly safe to swim in. I can only say that that is not the view of international experts on water pollution. They take the view that even with long outfalls the micro-organisms contained in raw sewage are damaging to health and that the significant proportion of our sewage disposal which takes place through outfalls to the sea ought not to take place. I believe that they are right and that the time will come when it will be universally recognised that disposal of raw sewage off our beaches is not an acceptable policy and not an acceptable health risk.

We have therefore a very serious problem whichever set of figures one takes. This Bill, although it is not intended for the purpose, with the establishment of the National Rivers Authority provides an opportunity for the Government, if they wish, to take their responsibilities seriously. It provides the Government with an opportunity to give the National Rivers Authority—the establishment of which has been welcomed on all sides of the House—a general responsibility for preventing and reducing pollution in our controlled waters. I urge the House to accept this amendment. I urge the Government to accept it. If necessary, I shall ask the House to approve the amendment, which would, together with Amendment No. 71, give real effect to that aim and real assurance to our people that our rivers and beaches are safe. We have no such assurance from the Bill as it stands. I beg to move.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is inviting us to do something that we have already done. He is inviting us to put into the beginning of the Bill a responsibility—a very laudable responsibility—for the National Rivers Authority on the control of pollution which is set out very fully indeed in Part III of the Bill, and in particular in Chapter I of Part III, on page 111. Indeed, the noble Lord's own amendment refers to Part III and states that the National Rivers Authority shall perform the duties which arise under Part III. The amendment would be an unnecessary piece of repetition.

We can all rejoice that for the first time we are to have a National Rivers Authority in this country. We should also rejoice that certainly in 19½ pages of the Bill the duties of the authority and other duties in relation to pollution are set out in very great detail. Quite frankly, it would be an appalling excess of zeal, to put it as kindly as one can, if we accepted this amendment as well.

The noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 71, which is an amendment to Clause 8. I am a little surprised that we are being invited to consider that amendment in connection with Amendment No. 1 because it raises a somewhat different and more detailed point. Frankly, that is a point which I would rather leave to be dealt with by my noble friends on the Front Bench, either on this amendment or on Amendment No. 71 if it is taken at a later stage. However, although one always applauds zeal, this really is excessive.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, I agree with the last part of what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton but I shall deal later with the first part of his comments. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wanted to group Amendment No. 71 with Amendment No. 1. That is entirely his privilege and I am happy to deal with that grouping, but I agree with my noble friend that Amendment No. 71 is not consequential on Amendment No. 1.

The Government yield to no one in their commitment to controlling and reducing pollution in our rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. The evidence for that is before us and is irrefutable. It is there in this Bill, in the complete overhaul of pollution control machinery in the establishment of the NRA; and it is in Part III, in the complete and indeed dramatic extension of the legislation for controlling pollution. Throughout the Committee stage the party opposite could come forward with not one single proposal for major extension to those powers. The fact is that what is in the Bill in respect of pollution control is comprehensive and complete.

What then are we to make of these amendments? I shall deal with the amendment in respect of bathing waters in a moment, but let me deal first with the main amendment before us. This does two things. First, it singles out pollution for special mention as a function of the NRA. Secondly it enshrines controlling and reducing as the purpose to be pursued. The first is mistaken and the second unnecessary.

Let me deal first with the special mention of pollution control as an NRA function. The reason we should reject this is because it unbalances the overall design of the Bill and involves a complete misunderstanding of the nature of management of our water environment and the role of the NRA within it. The essence of the NRA is that we are concentrating within it the whole range of functions related to the water environment, which are inextricably linked. The fact is that one cannot separate water quality management from the management of water resources. Dilution is the essential factor linking the two, for the quality of our rivers abstractions is as important as discharges. Nor can one separate these matters from the management of drainage and flood prevention works.

e us. This does two things. First, it singles out pollution for special mention as a function of the NRA. Secondly it enshrines controlling and reducing as the purpose to be pursued. The first is mistaken and the second unnecessary.

Let me deal first withapproach. It is inconsistent with the philosophy of water environment management notej use it unbalances the overall design of the Bill and involves a complete misunderstanding of the nature of management of our wat Let me now turn to the second feature of the amendment, for it may be that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is more concerned to insert in the Bill the commitment to prevention and reduction of pollution. If so, that is equally unnecessary for reasons which were considered at length in Committee. My noble friend Lord Renton has just reminded the House that your Lordships will know that all the powers on pollution control in Chapter I of Part III are deliberately and specifically geared to the maintenance and improvement of the quality of controlled waters, and that is inescapably to the reduction of pollution.

How does it achieve that? Clause 104 provides for the Secretary of State to set water quality objectives, but to do so for the purpose of maintaining and improving water quality. Clause 105 then requires the Secretary of State and the NRA to exercise all their powers and duties in the relevant chapter of the Bill so as to achieve those objectives so far as it is practicable to do so. So this pan of the Bill is a carefully constructed whole. It sets out the duty; namely, the maintenance and improvement of water quality. It makes clear how, through the quality objectives, that duty is to be given real substance and meaning. Finally it requires that all pollution control powers be used to achieve these. This is a complete and full framework, providing the critical linkages which have been absent in previous legislation. I suggest to the House that there also is nothing in this aspect of the amendment which is necessary or desirable.

Nor is there anything of substance in the second amendment which would add to Clause 8 a duty to promote the quality of bathing waters. The reason why is this is so simple and goes back to the points that I have already made. First, let me assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that coastal waters are among the controlled waters for which objectives for the maintenance and improvement of water quality are to be set and for which all the powers in Chapter I of Part III of the Bill are to be applied. Inescapably, therefore, the NRA already has under the Bill a duty to promote the quality of bathing waters and of other waters and to do so for all the purposes, including recreation, to which those waters may be put. It goes without saying that in doing this we shall of course discharge our commitment under European Community directives.

From these detailed arguments let me turn to the wider canvas. It may be that the purpose of the amendment was simply to provide an occasion for us to debate pollution once more and to go over again matters not just from the Committee stage but from Second Reading. I must detain your Lordships a little to set the record straight on the quality of our rivers, estuaries and coastal waters, especially in view of the errors and distortions that the recent 36 hours, including some comment from the Labour Party, have brought forward on this issue. Perhaps I may emphasise some fundamental points.

The first concerns the actual state of our rivers and estuaries. These are not as good as any of us would like—of course they are not. But they never could be. They are of good and fair quality. Our rivers are among the cleanest of any in the European Community, with 95 per cent. in good or fair condition. But we want to improve them even further. And that is what much of this Bill is about.

e turn to the wider canvas. It may be that the purpose of the amendment was simply to provide an occasion for us to debate pollution once more and to go over again matters not just from the Committee stage but from Second Reading. I must detain your Lordships a little to set the record straight on the quality of our rivers, estuaries anAt this moment I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the third report from the Environmental Committee of another place in the Session 1986–87 on the pollution of rivers and estuaries. In particular I draw attention to paragraph 27: There are a number of reasons why water authority effluents fall short of the present consent standards. The most immediate reason is because from the mid-1970s until the early '80s there was a steady drop in investment by the water authorities in sewage and sewage disposal". Chart 1 on the opposite page provides a graphic illustration of the desperate and detrimental cut in investment that the Labour Government undertook during their term of office. The fact is that available evidence suggests that since 1985 any such decline has been halted. There is no sound evidence that overall over the past decade the quality of our rivers and estuaries has declined. They remain good. But of course we want to improve them further and that is what much of this Bill is about.

I turn now to our beaches and coastal waters. Every year our 403 coastal bathing waters are tested to assess the water quality in relation to Community standards. In 1988, 67 per cent. of our identified bathing waters met the mandatory coliform standards, which is a marked improvement upon recent years. When the European Commission publishes the results of the 1987 survey of Community bathing waters, we would expect to be in the middle of the European league. We must remember that all popular coastal resorts in the United Kingdom are identified, whereas some other member states have been criticised by the Commission for identifying only waters which are guaranteed to meet the directive's standards and not identifying any which are known to be dirty. Others have not reported their results. We are undoubtedly doing better than many of the member states in upgrading our bathing waters.

Although the Commission has raised a number of complaints in respect of the application of the directive to the United Kingdom, it has, as far as we are aware, been satisfied with the detailed responses that we have sent. And it is worth noting that the Commission is pursuing complaints against five other member states over the implementation of the directive. Our story here is not one of failure but of vigorous and sustained improvement.

I met the Commissioner this morning for a long session at the department. I told him that I would chase up what the Commission is doing to bring other member states up to the standards that we have reached and to provide information on the standards we have reached. Unfortunately we cannot get a fair comparison at the moment as regards what other states are doing because of the reasons that I have already given. I said that this was an unfair situation where Britain is producing all the information that is required whereas many other states are not.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, touched on the point of long sea outfalls. I was very surprised that, without any substantiating evidence, he totally rubbished the recent report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. That Royal Commission is highly respected throughout the world and it said that a long sea outfall discharging sewage was the best environmental option. I believe the point that the noble Lord made should be rephrased in this way. A long sea outfall will always be necessary regardless of whether you have primary, secondary and/or tertiary treatment of a sewage works on the coast. The question is whether it is better to put down that outfall the screened sewage that occurs in some cases at the moment or whether we put down a considerable amount of acid which is used in the secondary treatment and which is very harmful to marine life. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be aware, with his concern for the environment, that to put down chlorine or paracetic acid—which I believe is the other material used in cleansing sewage—is very detrimental to all forms of marine life.

Finally what of investment and resources? I remind the House that it was this Government who initiated and are carrying forward the enormous investment programme to restore the Mersey, which in its scale and significance must have few parallels anywhere in the world. And we have further announced a billion pound programme to overcome decades of neglect in our sewage treatment works. But it is not only in this respect that this Government have, by comparison with many of their predecessors, a proud record in this area. It shows itself quite as clearly in the area of legislation. It was, after all, this Government who between 1983 and 1987 implemented Part II of the Control of Pollution Act, enacted by a Labour Government in 1974, but their commitment to the environment then was such that they did not implement this important part of the Act.

In this Bill we now bring before the House perhaps the broadest and most substantial legislative measure for water pollution control ever undertaken. That is the background against which these amendments must be seen. I reiterate the points I made initially. These amendments are both unnecessary and undesirable. They are unnecessary because the Bill already ensures that control and reduction of pollution are among the functions of the authority for coastal waters as well as for the other controlled waters. They are unnecessary because it is the explicit duty of the Secretary of State and the NRA to use their powers for the purpose of improving water quality and only for that purpose. More than that, and for the first time, the Bill gives them the means to achieve it.

Finally, the amendment is undesirable because to single out in Clause 1 a specific function in isolation from all those other functions in the Bill to which control of water quality is inextricably linked is to undermine the essential integrated philosophy of water environment management developed over the past 20 years, of which the NRA is itself the culmination and to which the Bill before the House is a major contribution.

3.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, there are two strands to the Minister's reply, both of which seem to me to be unsatisfactory. The first is what one might kindly call architectural in the sense that it is concerned with the structure of the Bill. Any attempt to amend the Bill is criticised on architectural grounds rather than on the grounds of the substance of the amendments. I make no apology for seeking to bring into Part I of the Bill a general duty to control, prevent and reduce pollution in our waters. Such a general duty for recreational and environmental matters is contained in Part I. It is not contained in Clause 1, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seemed to think that it is adequate to have many specific duties in Part III. That is not the case for environmental duties and it should not be the case for the control of pollution.

The trouble with the Bill as it is constructed—I do not deny that there are complex linkages throughout the Bill; that is very clear—is that it does not set out in one place and in unambiguous terms the duty which ought to be the overriding duty of the National Rivers Authority to control and prevent pollution of our waters.

Lord Renton

My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 105 he will see that it does just that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, Clause 105 and the surrounding clauses contain a number of references to the duties of the National Rivers Authority. That is absolutely true. But the analogy I have made is with the environmental and recreational duties, which are treated as general duties of the National Rivers Authority and of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services. We are seeking to secure that the control of pollution is recognised as being of equal importance to those important recreational and environmental duties and is not relegated to Part III. That is the purpose of this part of our argument.

In the second part of his argument the Minister seeks by historical references to show that the Government's record on pollution is good. Let us start from common ground. We all agree that a great deal has still to be done. The Minister and Mr. Howard have said that and I am sure that my honourable friend would agree. We all agree that in past years no government, Labour or Conservative, paid as much attention to environmental matters as is paid now. In recent years the climate of opinion has changed dramatically. But it is not enough to pick out a period of years from the previous Labour Government or from the early years of the present government to advance the argument that enough is being done now and that the Government's plans are satisfactory for our purpose.

Perhaps I may give a few examples of that, and I could give many more. The Minister repeated the argument made by Mr. Howard that the Labour Government had reduced expenditure on investment in sewerage. It is certainly true that between 1974 and 1979—the time when the oil crisis had caused economic problems in all developed countries of the world—investment in sewerage declined. However, the low level reached in 1979 was maintained and not increased by the Conservative Government for all but the past two years. In other words, for eight years of Conservative Government investment continued at the lowest level reached by the Labour Government. Until two years ago the average investment by the Labour Government was higher than the average investment by the Conservative Government.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord on that point. If he turns to the chart of the Select Committee's report he will quite clearly see that in 1980–81 the steep and almost straight decline in investment from 1974 onwards turns around and goes back up.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I do not have the figures in front of me. If I have quoted them incorrectly I apologise. The fact remains that the average level of investment in the first five years—and almost certainly for longer than that—of the Conservative Government was lower than the average level of investment under the Labour Government. I do not think that the noble Earl will deny that side of it.

In order to show, or in order to purport to show, that our river quality is good the Minister said that 95 per cent. of our rivers are in good or fair condition. In writing to my honourable friend, Mr. Howard did not say that. He said that 95 per cent. of river length is in a good or fair condition, which is not the same thing at all. Of course a high proportion of river length upstream of residential or industrial development is of good or fair quality. That must be the case. The fact of the matter is that downstream, where large numbers of people live and where there is a large amount of industrial development, our rivers are simply not good enough. That is clear.

The Minister chose to refer to the mandatory coliform standard, one of the many standards controlled by the European Community directive. Two can play at that game. The Minister failed to tell us about pesticide residues in drinking water in the Thames Water Authority area. For Simazine, of the samples taken 100 per cent. failed; for Atrazine, 75 per cent. of the samples failed; and for Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, to which reference was made in Committee, 25 per cent. of the samples failed.

The Minister referred to long sea outfalls. I agree that there is no simple solution to this problem. I was referring to the disposal of raw sewage. It is certainly true that if one then insists on disposing of treated sewage, there are unfortunate side effects in relation to acids getting out into the sea. That does not affect the fundamental point that is being made. This country is the only one in Europe which disposes of raw sewage on a significant scale into the sea. A high proportion of it goes through short sea outfalls which are undeniably damaging to health and to bathing water quality. Even the long sea outfalls have undesirable side effects.

Both on the architectural side and on the historical side the Government's analysis is partial and their conclusions are unjustified. The conclusion that we must reach from this debate is that the Government are not prepared to be committed to an overriding obligation to control pollution in controlled waters. That is the inescapable conclusion to which the House must come. It is on that basis that I seek the opinion of the House on the amendment.

3.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 132.

DIVISION NO 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Leatherland, L.
Airedale, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Amherst, E. Lockwood, B.
Ampthill, L. Longford, E.
Ardwick, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Birk, B. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Blackstone, B. McNair, L.
Blease, L. Molloy, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Mountevans, L.
Bottomley, L. Mulley, L.
Briginshaw, L. Nicol, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Ogmore, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Parry, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Peston, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Phillips, B.
Campbell of Eskan, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Rochester, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Ross of Newport, L.
David, B. Sainsbury, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Saint Brides, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Scanion, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Seear, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Sefton of Garston, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Serota, B.
Gallacher, L. Shepherd, L.
Galpern, L. Soper, L.
Gladwyn, L. Stallard, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Gregson, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Grimond, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hanworth, V. Underhill, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hughes, L. Whaddon, L.
Jeger, B. White, B.
John-Mackie, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Kagan, L. Willis, L.
Kearton, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Kennet, L.
Kilbracken, L. Winstanley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Abinger, L. Allerton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Annaly, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Arran, E.
Balfour, E. Joseph, L.
Bellwin, L. Kaberry of Adel, L.
Belstead, L. Killearn, L.
Birdwood, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Blatch, B. Kinnoull, E.
Blyth, L. Lauderdale, E.
Bolton, L. Layton, L.
Borthwick, L. Long, V.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. McFadzean, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Caccia, L. Manton, L.
Caithness, E. Marley, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Campbell of Croy, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Carnock, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. Merrivale, L.
Clinton, L. Mersey, V.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Middleton, L.
Cottesloe, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Cranbrook, E. Morris, L.
Crickhowell, L. Moyne, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Munster, E.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Norrie, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Nugent of Guildford, L.
Derwent, L. Onslow, E.
Dilhorne, V. Orkney, E.
Dundee, E. Orr-Ewing, L.
Effingham, E. Oxfuird, V.
Elibank, L. Pender, L.
Elles, B. Porritt, L.
Erroll of Hale, L. Radnor, E.
Faithfull, B. Reilly, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Renton, L.
Ferrers, E. Rippon of Hexham, L.
Foley, L. Rugby, L.
Forbes, L. Russell of Liverpool, L.
Fortescue, E. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Seebohm, L.
Gainford, L. Selkirk, E.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Sharpies, B.
Geddes, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Gisborough, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Greenway, L. Somers, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Grimthorpe, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Strathclyde, L.
Strathspey, L.
Halsbury, E. Sudeley, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L. Terrington, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Teviot, L.
Harvington, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Havers, L. Thurlow, L.
Henley, L. Trafford, L.
Hesketh, L. Tranmire, L.
Hives, L. Trefgarne, L.
Holderness, L. Trumpington, B.
Hooper, B. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Hunter of Newington, L. Waldegrave, E.
Hylton-Foster, B. Whitelaw, V.
Ironside, L. Wynford, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.47 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 11, at end insert— ("(1A) In respect of any of the functions assigned or transferred to it, the authority may not subcontract any such function to any person, except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (regulations on contracting out of functions) below.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 21. In Committee we discussed the issue of what came to be known as the poacher and the game keeper; in other words, the issue of whether the National Rivers Authority could properly and effectively exercise its function if it had to subcontract some of the measurement activities and some of the research activities in particular which it has to undertake in order to control the activities of the water and sewerage undertakings to those very same water and sewerage undertakings.

We argued by way of amendments in Committee that it was not possible for the National Rivers Authority to do the job which it will have to do with the full independence which it will need if it is to be subject to the necessity to subcontract those very important activities to the bodies which it is responsible for controlling. A good deal of debate took place with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee, about those parts of the National River Authority functions which could properly be subcontracted and those which could not.

The argument put forward by the Government was that certainly at the outset it would not be possible for the National Rivers Authority to do without the research functions in particular—and the computing functions were also mentioned—of the regional water authorities and therefore of the successor water and sewerage undertakings.

A number of years were bandied about, but I believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, replied the ultimate figure was that for the first two years at any rate it would be necessary to sub-contract those functions to those bodies already doing the work because it would be impossible, or at least uneconomic and inefficient, to set up facilities to do the work completely separate from the new water and sewerage undertakings. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that the advisory committee felt that it should have access to the computers maintained by the plcs. He used the phrase "for a time". I do not know what he meant by "for a time", but he had a valid point when he said that, as he did when he referred to the plcs' laboratories.

We are not bringing back the original amendment, which sought to change at a stroke the responsibility for carrying out those laboratory and computing facilities. We are seeing that it does not continue for ever and that we do not have, for any longer than is strictly necessary or that the Secretary of State considers strictly necessary, the NRA being forced to sub-contract the work to those whom it has the responsibility of controlling.

The dangers of such sub-contracting were fairly obvious. I do not believe that they were seriously questioned in Committee. In that supervisory and regulatory work, samples have to be taken in accordance with proper scientific procedures. They may well be used in evidence in court if the NRA pursues its regulatory function to the ultimate degree of taking water and sewerage undertakers to court for any defects which it finds. The difficulty with that is that the people who take the sample may well be called upon to give evidence. In effect, they will be called upon to give evidence against their own employer.

Perhaps they can erect Chinese Walls in their own minds. They will certainly act as honourably as they possibly can. I do not deny that they will do an honest job of representing the results of their scientific activities; but the fact remains that it is an unfair burden to place upon them, because inevitably their position as officers of the plcs (the water and sewerage undertakers) will be weakened if a significant part of their time is taken up by attacking their bosses on behalf of the NRA.

There is potential for a conflict of interest. That is why we have regulations. It is not fair to place that conflict of interests upon the heads of individual employees of the water and sewerage undertakings. The right thing to do is to resolve that conflict of interest as soon as possible by giving the NRA responsibility for carrying out its own scientific and sampling inquiries and computing activities.

We accept that there needs to be an introductory period. It is for that reason that the amendments are phrased as they are. The second amendment is a new clause after Clause 3. It specifies the regulations. The Secretary of State will have the power under the new clause to specify what functions shall be sub-contracted, because they need to be sub-contracted, and that, the transitional period shall be two years, or such other period as the Secretary of State may by Order specify".

That does not give an opportunity for the NRA or the water and sewerage undertakings to be forced into the absurd position of having to cease sub-contracting before it is economically sensible to do so. However, it says that there must be a time, which must be determined by the Secretary of State by order—in other words, by Parliament—when that dangerous and damaging mixing of the roles of poacher and gamekeeper comes to an end.

Our amendments answer the criticisms which were made of previous amendments in Committee. They are designed to do so, but they maintain the principle of separating the role of the poacher from that of the gamekeeper while yet retaining all possibilities for the NRA and the water and sewerage undertakings to continue with the existing arrangements while it is technically necessary for them to do so.

I hope the Government will feel, as I do, that this is a proper reaction to the debate which took place in Committee, and a proper matter on which they could advise the House, even if the wording of the amendment is not exactly right, that the principle behind it is a sound one. I believe it to be so. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is a sensible measure. It will give the NRA time in which to get its house in order. There will then be no mixing of the poacher and gamekeeper principle. The NRA should be independent in all its functions if it is to have the maximum effect. I therefore recommend that the amendment be seriously considered.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I take a completely contrary view. I think that it would be an obstacle to progress and achievement on the part of the NRA if we were to accept Amendments Nos. 2 and 21. We are building great hopes on what may be done by the NRA—the first body of its kind that we have had for all our rivers. It is given specific responsibilities under the Bill. They are clearly set out and I shall refer to them in a moment.

In order to discharge those responsibilities, it must either have a huge technical and practical operative staff of its own, so that it does everything by direct labour, or it must be free to employ various companies and agencies in order to do the work that it has to do. I shall give some examples by referring to Clause 8(4) where it says: Without prejudice to its other duties … it shall be the duty of the Authority, to such extent as it considers desirable, generally to promote"— and we all want this— the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of inland waters and of land associated with such waters". Under that heading it may wish to do some tree planting. It may wish to have some awful old tip or refuse dump cleared away. Is it to do it by direct labour itself or can it employ somebody else to do it? Surely it should be free. We then come to, the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment". That would be essentially technical work. There are experts in the laboratories of universities. I think particularly of the marine biology laboratory at Plymouth, where I twice went on a course, which would be most valuable in helping it; but that used to be (and I suppose that it still is) an independent agency and not a government one. In any event, there is a tendency for us to treat the various government agencies, like the National Environmental Research Council, as bodies which do things under contract. If these amendments were accepted the NERC would not be able to act unless regulations made by the Secretary of State had in some way enabled it to do so.

As we discussed on the last amendment, under Part III of the Bill and particularly Clause 105 the National Rivers Authority will have general duties as well as specific responsibilities with regard to pollution. In that connection we may find that the work required to be done is not such that we could expect the National Rivers Authority to keep a large staff all over the country in order to do it. It is bound to have to employ local people who would be able to carry out the work.

Perhaps I may go back to recreational facilities. Clause 8(4)(c) states that the authority is to promote, the use of such waters and land for recreational purposes". That may sometimes mean—as, for example, on the River Nene at Peterborough—building a dam across a river and flooding meadows which are not useful for any other purpose so as to create a lake for recreational purposes. Is the authority to have the manual staff and all the equipment for doing that itself by direct labour? No, quite frankly, this is misconceived.

In any event, one wonders exactly what is implied in the expression "subcontract". We have contractors and subcontractors, but here it is subcontractors only who are singled out. Amendment No. 21 refers in subsection (2) to the transitional period. It may be here that my own ignorance leads me to a misunderstanding but I do not know what the transitional period referred to is. It may be mentioned elsewhere in the Bill but at the moment I cannot find it.

Are we really to have the operations of the National Rivers Authority (from which we expect so much) wait upon the bureaucratic making of regulations covering all kinds of subcontracting of its functions? Even then, only those functions relating to computing facilities and information technology, sampling and laboratory analysis, are to be considered as subcontracting possibilities. No, I hope that noble Lords who had thought of supporting the amendment will on reflection realise that it is simply not on.

4 p.m.

Lord Ross of Newport

My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is making a mountain out of a molehill. The wording here may not be entirely accurate. We are trying to make sure that the National Rivers Authority will not contract out to the water plcs the job of testing their own sewerage and the pollution of their own rivers after a certain period of time.

It is clearly understood that the water authorities have the expertise to carry out these functions although they are usually done by the local authorities and by their environmental health officers. Yes, the water in my own area has been tested by the local authority, as I am sure is the case in the area where the noble Lord, Lord Renton, lives.

Many private operators could do these things—universities and other establishments. All we are saying is that after a reasonable period of time the NRA should be obliged by regulation to put the functions out elsewhere, but not the plcs. If noble Lords want an example, for goodness' sake one has only to look at the City of London when we talk about Chinese walls that do not work. I believe the amendment to be eminently suitable. It should be taken on board even if the wording is not quite correct.

Lord Trafford

My Lords, despite the passionate intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, it is clear that the case which my noble friend Lord Renton made against the amendment stands. It is impractical and, if I may use the word, somewhat stupid. It must be absolutely evident that the National Rivers Authority will have to do this, not only for the transitional period mentioned in the amendment.

There is one other point which my noble friend did not raise but which is pertinent. It is very curious that those who support the amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Addington, make a plea for the independence of the NRA. They go on to suggest—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, talked about poachers and gamekeepers, a point which I think everybody accepts—that the amendment would require that independence be compromised through constant referral to regulations by the Secretary of State. That is something I should have thought we would want an independent National Rivers Authority to avoid.

So, on both theoretical and practical grounds, the wording of the amendment seems to be misconceived. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, raised the point that we do not want the water authorities testing themselves. I should have thought, from the general tenor of the amendment, that that was one of the precise reasons why the National Rivers Authority was established in the first place. It is to see that this sort of thing does not happen and that it carries out its functions properly. Therefore, although one has complete sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, the amendment as written cannot apply, both for the practical reasons which my noble friend raised and for the theoretical reasons in regard to the authority's independence which I have raised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh)

My Lords, these amendments go a little further than the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Committee stage in that they now recognise the necessity, in the short term, for the NRA to be able to contract out certain work, including computing and laboratory services to the plcs if it is to be able to carry out its functions properly. They thus provide for a transitional period of two years during which such contracts would be permissible, and to that extent are to be welcomed.

However, they go on to propose that no computing or laboratory work should be able to be subcontracted beyond that period. Even though the amendments make provision for that period to be extended, I am afraid I must part company with the noble Lord. Although I am determined as he is, if I may say so, that the NRA's independence should not be compromised, I do not see that contracting out of some parts of the kind of work mentioned in the amendments poses any threat whatever to that independence. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has also made it clear during the earlier debate that he and the rest of the NRA Advisory Committee fully share that view.

In one region the NRAAC has proposed that analysis of water samples should be carried out by the plc laboratory for considerably longer than two years, as being the most cost-effective of the available alternatives. In most other regions it is not intended that there should be long-term reliance on the plcs for routine bulk analysis, but even so there is likely to be specialist work such as virological analysis which cannot be done in-house by the NRA except at disproportionate cost.

These amendments would forbid such work being contracted out to any other person, which seems to me to be rather unrealistic and to run counter to the Government's view that the NRA should be encouraged to subcontract as much of its operational work as possible. But I would also oppose these amendments even if they only debarred contracting out to the plcs because, like my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I simply do not accept the view that this would pose any substantial threat to the NRA's independence. It would merely limit its ability to secure the best value for money.

During the debate in Committee some stress was laid on the position of a plc employee who might have to give evidence against his employer. Again, today, stress was laid on it by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I acknowledge the concerns expressed on this side of the House as well as by noble Lords opposite, but let us look at the actual situation. A water sample would come in to a laboratory, completely unmarked as to its origin—one of dozens. The laboratory technicians would put it through a routine series of tests and processes and then enter the results, probably in a computer file, for more or less immediate onward transmission to the National Rivers Authority. If it turned out that the sample was outside the permissible pollution limits and that that was the fault of the very company which employed the laboratory technicians in question, then in one sense perhaps that would be embarrassing. But how does it affect the independence of the NRA?

Having been alerted to it by the laboratory, the NRA will then ensure that further samples from the waters concerned are dealt with by another laboratory—normally one of its own laboratories in another region altogether, once these are in operation—and certainly not by a laboratory owned by the offending plc. Meanwhile, in order to ensure that the plc is not indulging in manipulation of sample results, there will of course be continuous random cross-checks using third party laboratories. I have dwelt on this point at some length because it is an important one and because I would like to put it in its true perspective, as I see it.

My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is sadly not here today, in his speech in Committee urged the Government to stipulate that when the National Rivers Authority wants to contract out to the plcs it must obtain ministerial approval. The laboratory and computing contracts will in fact be approved by the Secretary of State as part of the schemes of transfer under Schedule 2, and my department is in constant contact with the NRAAC to ensure that the contracts proposed do in fact satisfy the future NRA's vital needs for security and independence.

The Government and the NRAAC have both given this problem very careful consideration and are unable to agree with the views of those who see dangers in either the laboratory or the computing work being contracted out to the plcs or, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, to any other competent party at any time in the future. As my noble friend Lord Nugent so rightly pointed out in Committee, needless duplication of facilities is a practice which could cost a very great deal of money, and consumers will not thank us if we oblige the NRA to spend money in this or any other way. I respectfully suggest therefore that these are matters not for legislation but for the management of the NRA, who will clearly be extremely sensitive to the need to be sure that the service it gets on these functions is entirely reliable and untainted. Tying its hands in the way suggested in these amendments seems wrong both in principle and as a matter of practice. That is why I urge your Lordships to resist these amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I wish to say straight away that I acknowledge the force of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In seeking to accommodate the very reasonable concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and others to secure that sensible arrangements were possible in the opening years of the life of the National Rivers Authority we have gone too far. We have sought in the text of these amendments to do something that we did not intend to do in our minds, which was to prohibit all subcontracting, whether to the plcs or to anybody else. To that extent, the amendments are not only defective but are gravely defective. I shall not ask the House to divide on them.

I apologise partly for having taken up some of the time of the House with defective amendments. I say partly because the response of the Minister is of great interest to us. I listened carefully to what he said in his argument against any restriction of subcontracting to the plcs. He will understand that, whatever the amendment states, I do not agree with that.

I listened in particular to what the Minister said about the safeguards which will be incorporated in the schemes of transfer under Schedule 2. That seems to me to offer some hope that we might reach an acceptable compromise between now and a later stage of the Bill which would protect the distinction between poacher and gamekeeper. That is, after all, at the heart of the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. It is a gamekeeper authority called into being because the water and sewerage undertakings are to be privatised and are to be removed from other controls. To that extent, I believe we are all in agreement that there must be this separation of powers and responsibilities.

However, I do not think I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, in what he called his theoretical argument. I shall have to think about that and read his speech with some care between now and a later stage. However, it is clear that what we want to do, which is to maintain the independence of the National Rivers Authority from the plcs that it is supposed to be controlling, is not achieved by these amendments. As I said, we may have to look at other ways of achieving what we want between now and Third Reading. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report now be adjourned.

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.