Lords Sitting of 13 June 1989

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

Greenhouse Effect and Ozone Layer
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken to protect the ozone layer and reduce the threat of the greenhouse effect.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, a major contribution to the scientific assessment of the ozone issue was made by the department's stratospheric ozone review group. The London Ozone Conference brought commitments to a substantial increase in the number of parties to the Montreal Protocol. The United Kingdom will host the crucial second meeting of parties in 1990. The United Kingdom is giving fullest support to the UNEP-WMO Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, including chairing one of its three working groups. We proposed urgent consideration of a framework convention on climate at the last UNEP governing council meeting.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reassuring reply. Perhaps I may apologise to your Lordships for asking a Question that is apparently similar to that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, yesterday. However, it is on a subject that is very important and dear to all your Lordships, as it is to me; namely, the preservation of our green and pleasant world. Can the Minister tell us if the agreement reached at the environment council last week concerning the fitting of three-way catalysts to all new cars will help either the ozone layer or the greenhouse effect?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will not be much effect on the ozone layer, but I can tell my noble friend that there will certainly be an effect on greenhouse gases. The three-way catalyst increases the amount of carbon dioxide that a car emits because of the increased fuel that it burns. Accordingly, I insisted that, as part of the agreement that we reached in Luxembourg, the Commission should come forward with proposals as soon as possible in order to tackle the gas that the present agreement does not take into account. I shall continue to chivvy the Commission until it does.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before we can take the Government seriously as regards the ozone layer and the effect of carbon dioxide, we expect them to take some action? First, I hope that the noble Earl will recommend to the Government that we expect them to abandon the Electricity Bill. I do not see what is funny about that; it is a serious matter. Secondly, I
1258
hope that the Minister will also tell his right honourable friend that the Government should have in place of the Electricity Bill an energy policy based on renewable sources of energy and energy conservation. Does the Minister not agree that that is the right policy? I hope that the Government will adopt it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well just how seriously we take these matters. Although we take them seriously we shall doubtless differ from the noble Lord on many occasions still to come. I can assure him that renewables in the energy policy are considerations that the Department of Energy and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State are looking into. We are spending a great deal of money in researching them.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister claims that the Government are serious as regards energy efficiency. Can he tell the House how it is that they are engaged in cutting down the resources for the energy efficiency unit? As my noble friend has just suggested, will the Minister accept that, concerning the greenhouse effect, energy conservation and renewable sources of energy are far better and surer methods of reducing the greenhouse effect than proliferating nuclear power stations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered most of the noble Lord's question yesterday. I am sure that he will be satisfied by what I said when he reads the Official Report. Conservation of energy and renewables are some of the ways in which the potential of the greenhouse effect can be tackled. Another way is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we burn. Therefore nuclear power is the environmentally best option.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the first part of my question?
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, reverting back to the Question on the Order Paper, can my noble friend say what individuals can do to help?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we can all do a great deal to help. Perhaps I may suggest that we fit thermostats to our radiators and then turn them down; that we use long-life, low-powered light bulbs where appropriate; that we ask about energy consumption when buying home appliances; that we cut out unnecessary car journeys and take a little exercise; that we keep within speed limits not only because it is good for the environment but is also safer. Finally, I suggest that we use ozone-friendly products.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the first question that I asked him? How does he expect the House to believe that the Government are serious concerning energy conservation when they are engaged in cutting down very severely the resources for the energy efficiency unit in their own department?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the House will join with me in saying how disappointed we were that the noble Lord was not in the House yesterday to listen to me.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is true that in order to do something about improving the environment rather than just talking about it, it is necessary, first, to co-operate with our European partners and other countries; and, secondly, to have a strong economy? On both counts, does the Minister not agree that the Government have achieved a considerable measure of success?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. One needs a strong economy and the co-operation of all the other countries in the rest of the world. The basis of the London Ozone Conference was to seek the support of other countries and to raise the awareness of the problem. The conference was a great success.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that this matter has arisen on the Order Paper again because it gives me an opportunity to thank the noble Earl and to pay tribute to him for his personal efforts in the international negotiations on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. It also gives me an opportunity to ask again the question to which I did not receive an answer yesterday. Will he urge his governmental colleagues in the Department of Energy to accept your Lordships' amendment to the Electricity Bill? This would encourage energy conservation, which the noble Earl has agreed plays a significant part, if not the only part, in protecting the ozone layer and providing protection against the greenhouse effect?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to chide me for not answering his question yesterday. For that I apologise. I have not yet had time to draw it to the attention of my noble friend Lady Hooper. I shall do so at the first opportunity, when we have finished the Water Bill.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm to the House that the so-called ozone layer is not a layer; it is merely a maximum in the concentration of ozone from sea level to outer space? Secondly, there is not a hole in it. There is merely a depletion. This occurs over the Antarctic where nobody lives.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, yes, there is a depletion, but there is also a depletion over Britain, Norway and other parts of Europe—and people do live there.

Falkland Islands: Sovereignty
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the reported observations of the President-elect of the
1260
Argentine Republic, they are satisfied that current arrangements for the defence of the Falkland Islands are adequate.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): Yes, my Lords. Mr. Menem made a reference to the Falkland Islands during his election campaign which seemed to imply the possibility of another resort to force by Argentina. At another point in the campaign he said that Argentina's claim would be pursued through negotiation. We must hope that the second, rather than the first, will represent his considered view of the matter. We are satisfied that the garrison remains adequate for the present, though we keep force levels in the Falklands under constant review, and would not hesitate to augment them if this seemed necessary in the light of an increase in the threat to the islands.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that thoroughly satisfactory Answer. Will he confirm that his implication is that it is very important indeed in this matter that there should be no risk of misunderstanding?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I very much hope that the position of the United Kingdom in this matter is clear beyond peradventure. Recent utterances from Mr. Menem have suggested to the contrary, but I hope that he will take care to study what we have said in the past and what our position is now.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in view of the much less threatening statements made by President-elect Menem this last weekend as against those made during the general election campaign, should we not welcome those statements? Does the Foreign Office attach any special interpretation to those statements as distinct from the threatening statements he made during the general election campaign?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the most recent statement that I have seen from Mr. Menem—it is to be remembered that he does not take office until later this year—indicated that he wished to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with the British Government forthwith. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not available for discussion.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Argentina's position would probably preclude it from making war against anyone at the present time? Does he further agree, as I think he does having listened to his previous answer, that Senor Menem first of all says one thing and then says another?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the economic position in the Argentine is clearly very bad. I hope it will improve. As for its present capacity, that is not a matter upon which I would be able to offer a detailed or definitive comment. I would think it very unlikely that Argentina has the capability to mount much more than some annoyance at the present time.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm and comment on the information currently available in the Argentine that President-elect Menem has the full backing of Colonel Gaddafi of Libya for an attack on the Falklands? Could that not be an influence on the President-elect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I found Colonel Gaddafi offering me some support in a venture, I would take real care.

Ely Cathedral: Maintenance Funding
2.47 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley Lord St. John of Fawsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider making a grant towards the cost of protecting the close and gardens of Ely Cathedral.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, government funding for the maintenance of historic buildings in England is channelled through English Heritage. I understand that a three-year programme of grant aid for the former monastic buildings around Ely Cathedral, including the area known as the "close", was agreed by English Heritage in 1986.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that the close of Ely Cathedral, which was recently saved from desecration at the hands of the Dean and Chapter only by the generosity of Mr. Paul Getty, is now under threat again from the dean, who proposes to breach the medieval wall and intrude into a garden of the close an office building and a car park? Coming on top of what has been going on at Salisbury and the mishandling of the Mappa Mundi at Hereford, does this not show that deans are dangerous? Would it not be a great help—I am sure that the right reverend Prelate agrees with me—if the Government enabled deans to get on with their proper job, which is that of serving God, and they looked after Mammon?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware that there has been a certain amount of discussion and concern with regard to the proposed car park. However, I understand that the dean and chapter intend to discuss their proposals with all interested parties later this month.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend enlarge upon what he first said and tell the House whether the Government through English Heritage, or any other channel, are now willing to give support to the preservation of ecclesiastical buildings?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we give considerable support to ecclesiastical buildings. However, we do not give direct support to cathedrals. That policy is in line with the Church of England's own view that
1262
parish churches should take priority over cathedrals. It is worth pointing out that over an 18-month period Ely Cathedral recently managed to raise some £4 million.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while agreeing that parish churches have much less recourse to obtaining funds and sponsors than cathedrals have and therefore they should have priority, will the Minister also agree that some of our great cathedrals in this country are really falling down very badly? Does that not mean that some additional funding is necessary to prevent cathedrals such as Salisbury, Hereford and Ely from ruining their essential character in a desperate attempt to raise money for repairs and preservation? Would it not therefore be a good idea to set up an organisation similar to the National Trust, but making it a national trust for cathedrals?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think that that question would be better put to the Church of England rather than to me. The fact of the matter is that if the Church of England now feels that circumstances have changed as regards the priority of churches rather than cathedrals it can of course approach English Heritage. Last year English Heritage allocated some £5·5 million for church repair grants.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, is not my noble friend aware that a cathedral is in fact a church? Is he also aware that as most of the cathedrals were built at the same time they are all starting to fall down at the same time? Is it not therefore high time that both central Church and state took some part in looking after such buildings properly?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, of course I am aware that a cathedral is a church; I used the differential in definition purely to establish the present existence of the arrangements with English Heritage vis-à-vis the Church of England. It is probably fair to say that any structure which was built in, say, 1100 or 1200 is likely to have been falling down for some considerable period of time. There is a process of constant renewal in preserving the fabric of these great buildings.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can clarify one further point. Are we right to understand that it is the Government's policy in general not to resist proposals for support for churches if they need repair? Further, do his remarks refer to Scotland as well as to England?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I tried to explain earlier, there is a differential which is at the request of the Church of England with regard to the commitment by English Heritage. The differential is that the money should be targeted from English Heritage towards ordinary parish churches, so to speak, and that the cathedrals should be not included in that arrangement because by virtue of their greatness and importance they would find it easier to raise money.
As regards the position in Scotland, I shall have to write to my noble friend on the matter.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House, or write to any person who might be interested, about the organisation Cadw, which was set up by the Welsh Office and which has responsibilities, in association with the Welsh Tourist Board, for preserving all national memorials within Wales? Further, do the rules of that body also apply to the cathedrals?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if I may, I shall give the same answer to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, as I gave to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. I would not wish to be inaccurate in answering such a question.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, would it be possible for an Anglican to intervene in this discussion between two Roman Catholics, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale? Is my noble friend aware that some of us are really quite horrified at the attitude of some of the deans and chapters of English cathedrals and how they seem to be neglecting these buildings? That was underlined by the fiasco of the Mappa Mundi sale, the difficulty over the forecourt of Beverley Minster and other instances of desecration which seem to have gone on in the hierarchy of the Church of England. Will he agree that perhaps it may even be possible for a Roman Catholic minister to rescue the Church of England from its own folly?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Onslow that this is a matter from which I shall keep a considerable distance.
The Lord Bishop of Truro: My Lords, will the Minister agree that while it is most welcome to hear that there is such sympathy for the cathedrals, nevertheless, if there were to be any kind of financial contribution towards their upkeep it should not disturb the delicate balance arranged by the ecclesiastic exemption? I ask that because the discussion which we have had so far perhaps calls in question the future of the ecclesiastic exemption, which is most important to the Church of England. Moreover, because our cathedrals are not subject to faculty jurisdiction they would perhaps be put in a slightly vulnerable position if they were to receive grant aid from the Government. Therefore, I should be most grateful to have the Minister's assurance that such matters will be carefully borne in mind, although one would be delighted to hear a sympathetic reply.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can certainly give the reply which the right reverend Prelate requires. I can also point out that English Heritage contributes substantially to the buildings which surround most cathedrals in Britain; it is only the cathedral fabric which is not included.

English National Opera Company
2.57 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have in mind for the future of the English National Opera Company.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the funding of individual arts organisations is a matter for the Arts Council but my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts keeps in touch with the chairman and director of English National Opera.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partially satisfactory Answer. However, is she aware that as an opera lover and a one-time chorister I visit the English National Opera as a consumer from time to time? Is she also aware that some 400,000 people attend the English National Opera each year and that it is a British opera company with British singers? Is she further aware of the remarks made by her right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts to Mr. Palumbo, the new chairman of the Arts Council, that the English National Opera is one of the country's artistic flagships? Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to stand by those remarks practically?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I would feel most sorry for any choir which had my voice attached to it. I should like to echo the praise given by my noble friend to the English National Opera, of which I am a devoted admirer. I think that the company provides wonderful entertainment at a very reasonable price. Moreover, it deserves praise from all quarters. However, the Arts Council has to consider varied and competing demands for funds.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not the case that during the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill 1988 on an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carr—to which I was a co-signatory—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on June 13th at col. 128 of Hansard, said:
"We shall be prepared to consider whether there is some help or encouragement we can give to secure their future"—
that is, the opera and the ballet. As a result of those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Carr, withdrew his amendment. Is the Minister aware that the director of the London Boroughs Grant Scheme, once known as the Richmond Scheme, has now written to the English National Opera saying that the organisation is unable to replace any significant shortfall in Westminster grant, which has been running at £1.3 million? Evidently, that can only be replaced by an enormous increase in the community charge. Is that not yet another unhappy result of the abolition of the GLC?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer to the last point made by the noble Baroness is no. In answer to her other remarks, it is for the London boroughs to consider how they can best help the ENO, and efforts continue to persuade the London boroughs so to fund.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in view of the fact that my noble friend is answering, has the Ministry of Agriculture now become responsible for opera? Is there going to be a set-aside policy for the ENO?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I answer for the Government at all times.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I should preface my question by declaring my interest as one of the vice-chairmen of the English National Opera. Are my noble friend and the Government aware that the English National Opera company is not just the concern of the Arts Council, as was said, although it is an important concern of the council. It was also the concern, first, of the Greater London Council and then, most satisfactorily, after the abolition of the GLC, of Westminster City Council. It is the continuing help from Westminster City Council which is almost certainly removed from possibility by the local government Act to which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred. Is my noble friend aware of that need and of the need to have some certainty about what is to happen, because it is in the nature of an opera company that we have to make binding financial commitments several years ahead when engaging conductors, singers and so forth?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern about the possible loss of the Westminster grant. I hope that a solution can be found. The grant is made on behalf of all the London boroughs, as my noble friend is aware. I hope that they will play their part. The Arts Council is engaged in consultations with the London boroughs. The Government are of course aware of the urgency, and, I repeat, I hope that a solution can be found. The ENO's excellent three-year plan was drawn up on the assumption that the level of grant could be maintained. There is no reason to believe that the introduction of the charge will affect local authority funding of the arts.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, no doubt the Minister appreciates that the motives behind the question are extremely benevolent and kindly. I am sure that everyone here will be reassured by the emphasis that she places on the Arts Council having the obligation to look after artistic institutions. The best service that the Government can do for the English National Opera and many other artistic institutions is to provide them with enough money to do the job properly. The Minister probably agrees that, although not intended, the question contains the hint of the dreadful prospect that someone thinks that we should have a ministry of culture. She would probably agree that that is the most horrible thing that could happen to the arts.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I am speaking on behalf of the Government, I should prefer not to comment on the noble Lord's last question. I must repeat, it is for the Arts Council to determine its funding strategies.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, bearing in mind that the national companies, including the English National Opera company, are very much our country's shop front in the artistic world as a whole, is there not a case for special funding of those national companies, whether through the Arts Council special fund or a government special fund?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's remarks to my right honourable friend. Perhaps I may set out the ENO's financial position. It received £6,917,000 from the Government, via the Arts Council, in 1988–89. The company has also won an incentive funding award of £250,000. The purpose of the incentive funding scheme is to encourage arts organisations to increase their income from private sources. The ENO's income is expected to increase by 41 per cent. over the next three years. It has an excellent artistic reputation and maintains audiences at average levels of 80 per cent. Prices remain low despite increases this season. The ENO's top ticket price is £26.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that no matter how well the ENO has done in raising private funds and increasing its audiences, it is, like all artistic institutions, a victim of inflation over which it has no control? With inflation running at 8.5 per cent., and not yet peaked, and with the grant that it receives fixed at only 2 per cent. per annum, it is bound to be in severe difficulties. Does she agree that the only way in which the matter can be dealt with is if the Treasury is prepared to increase the previous indicated level of three-year funding for the arts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we recognise the pressures caused by inflation. Inflation affects everyone and not just arts organisations. The Government's priority must be to defeat it. Government expenditure on the arts has increased by 44 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the future of commercial television.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report 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 International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill will be taken.

Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Statute Law Repeals Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

1267
As your Lordships will be aware, one of the functions of the Law Commission and the Law Commission for Scotland is to promote:
"The repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law".
Over the past 20 years, the two Law Commissions have presented to Parliament 13 reports on statute law revision, with draft Bills attached. The 12 previous reports have resulted in the repeal of over 2,600 enactments, including 1,225 whole Acts. The present Bill proposes the repeal of 189 whole Acts or orders and the removal of redundant provisions from 355 others.
The Bill and its predecessors play a valuable part in the work of modernising and improving the statute book, work to which I attach particular importance. On the last occasion when a Bill of this nature was before this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that progress in this field had been admirable. I share his view and look forward to further progress being made by the Bill.
The repeals set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill are in 11 parts, relating to the administration of justice, finance, Ireland, local government, medicine, overseas' jurisdiction, planning and land, religious disabilities, transport and miscellaneous matters. The oldest statute to be repealed is the Innkeepers Act 1424 and the most recent the Billiards (Abolition of Restrictions) Act 1987, which became spent on enactment, when its purposes were achieved.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Part IX, which rationalises the vast amount of local authority legislation in South Yorkshire. In their explanatory note, the Law Commissions say that the,
"bulk, uncertain operation and inaccessibility of local legislation are problems of long standing".
A detailed review of such legislation for South Yorkshire has been carried out for the Law Commission and I hope that similar projects may follow.
As always in a Bill of this nature, several provisions which are to be repealed because they are now obsolete or spent are nevertheless of historical interest. Much of the legislation that was passed for the establishment of the Irish Free State and the government of Northern Ireland is now redundant, as are various provisions relating to disabilities which formerly affected Roman Catholics and Jews. Their repeal will, I am sure, arouse less debate than their enactment. I should add that there has been full consultation with interested bodies on these and all the other repeals.
I am sure that your Lordships would wish to join me in thanking the two Law Commissions for the very careful and detailed way in which they have, as always, set about their important task. If this Bill is given a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join with the noble and learned Lord in his expression of gratitude to the Law
1268
Commission and those who have been concerned in this admirable record of achievement in the matter of repeals. Some noble Lords might think that those repeals may well have been applied to some more recent legislation. But I should not end a congratulatory note on such a political point. However, it is not wholly absent from the minds of some of us.
This is an admirable process and we look forward to examining the detail of what is proposed. The setting up of the Law Commission was an important step in law reform, the most significant certainly in my time. We are grateful to see that the good work in that field is being maintained.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I am sure that the Law Commission will also appreciate his thanks.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidated Bills.

Water Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 102 [Waters to which Chapter I applies]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 112, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) that a watercourse of a description specified in the order is to be treated for those purposes as if it were not a relevant river or watercourse.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this government amendment will empower the Secretary of State to remove from the class of controlled waters watercourses of a type described in an order. Any such order will have to be in the form of a statutory instrument subject to annulment by either House.
The need for this amendment will be seen by examining the definition of relevant watercourse in subsection (4) of Clause 102. A relevant watercourse—that is a watercourse which counts as controlled waters under subsection (1)(c)—is any watercourse which is neither a public sewer nor a sewer or drain which drains into a public sewer.
In other words, a private drain which drained into a private cesspit would count as a relevant watercourse. This means that if the owner of that drain were to pour into it some effluent such as soapy water, he would be guilty of a pollution offence under Clause 106. In practice doubtless he would never be prosecuted. But it would obviously be better if he were not guilty of even a technical offence. Hence this amendment under which it will be possible to exclude such drains from the definition of relevant watercourse.
Why, it may be asked, do we not simply amend the definition of relevant watercourse in the Bill?

1269
The answer is that a perfect definition of watercourse—if such could be devised, and I doubt whether it could—would be extremely cumbersome and of inordinate length. The merit of this amendment is that it enables the Secretary of State to deal with any real problems to which the current definition of relevant watercourse might give rise.
Finally, I should like to stress the two safeguards against any possible abuse of the Secretary of State's order-making power. First, as I have already mentioned, any such order will as a consequence of subsection (6) be subject to annulment by either House. Secondly, if a drain discharges not into a cesspit but into controlled waters, whether or not that drain is itself a relevant watercourse will be of no importance, for if a person pours polluting matter into that drain, when that matter reaches the controlled waters that person will in any case be guilty of an offence under Clause 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Classification of quality of waters]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 123B:
Page 113, line 20, after ("may") insert ("in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 3A and 7A of Schedule 12").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123B I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 124B, 132AA, 132AB and 132CB. I rather regret that I was too slow on my feet to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he was introducing the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill whether the total volume of the statute book being repealed under the Bill is equivalent to the 409 pages of the Water Bill. If so, I am sure that we should gladly have made a swap with him, got rid of the Water Bill and kept the other matters for another day.
These amendments sound technical if they are read in detail, but they are of absolutely fundamental importance if the credibility of the Government's proposals for river water quality is to be sustained. They deal with the issues of sampling of river water quality and coastal water quality as well as with the way in which those samples are to be obtained, whether they are capable of being used in evidence and whether the sampling procedures are adequate for the purpose for which they are required; that is to ensure that the newly privatised water and sewerage companies have sufficient incentive to improve river water quality.
Unless the principle of these amendments is accepted and unless some of the amendments which are not simply probing amendments are accepted, a doubt must be cast on the wholehearted intention of the Government to improve river water quality. I wish briefly to introduce each of the amendments and then come back to the more fundamental issues which lie behind them.
Amendment No. 123B is in effect a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 132AA and 132AB which insert two new paragraphs in Schedule 12. Amendment No. 123B requires the Secretary of State, who has the responsibility for classifying river
1270
water quality, to do so in accordance with the requirements of the new paragraphs.
The new paragraphs in Schedule 12 deal with the complex issue of what are called look-up tables. Under the Control of Pollution Act and the register maintained under that Act, which is the basis for water authority operation in respect of river water quality, water authorities are allowed to operate a certain percentage of pollution higher or worse than should ideally be the case. They are given a more lax regime in some ways than for industrial discharges. People responsible for industrial discharges can be prosecuted on the basis only of a single observation of pollution in excess of the permitted level, and this comes under later amendments.
However, the observation must be in the form of a tripartite sample of river water quality. That means one sample is given to the presumed polluter—that is, the occupier of the land or the captain of the vessel concerned—the second is used for analysis purposes and the third is maintained for record keeping purposes. So the regime for industrial discharges is tough as regards infringement. A single sample is good enough or bad enough to trigger a prosecution. But it is also a tough regime for the scientific accuracy of the sampling procedure.
As regards water authorities prior to the enactment of the Bill, there is a system known as look-up tables. In effect they are a further consent condition. That means that water authorities are currently required to meet consent levels only, for example, 95 out of 100 times, and thus the regime for infringement is less onerous. It is easier for water authorities to get away with pollution. But at the same time the regime for sampling is itself less onerous. It is also less onerous in the sense that it means that a significant number of infringements can be recorded in the course of a year without the water authority being prosecuted.
What that means in turn is that a substantial number of samples has to be taken in the course of a year in order to establish whether the number of infringements is permitted. There is a further complication in that the Secretary of State has the power under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 to direct that the authority should transmit for determination such applications for consent as he specifies. That means that when the Secretary of State has directed in that way, the authority is bound by his direction. I have dealt with Amendments Nos. 123B, 132AA and 132AB. However, in doing so, I also touched on the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 124B and 132CB.
Amendment No. 124B, as I have said, refers to the comprehensive monitoring of river quality in controlled waters. It would require the Government to make sure that the monitoring is comprehensive—in other words, that enough samples are taken to give an accurate view of river water quality—and that it should be of sufficient frequency and recorded in such a way that not only is the monitoring complete but also that there is a possibility of private prosecution of the water or sewerage undertakings if there is. significant infringement. Therefore, Amendment No. 124B is an important part of the range of weapons which

1271
are necessary if river pollution is to be adequately controlled.
Finally, I have already referred to Amendment No. 132CB, which is concerned with tripartite sampling. The amendment requires that the authority should take all its water samples in accordance with the tripartite sampling system, in order that they are valid and there is no fear of contradiction in court cases.
We are trying to do two things with this series of amendments. First, we are trying to ensure that there is adequate public access to information so that private prosecutions can be brought for breaches of river water quality. We look for an assurance, backed by evidence that the Bill is adequate for that purpose, from the Government. Secondly, we are trying to ensure that the water plcs observe the same tough regime for discharges as is imposed for industrial discharges. It is simply not acceptable that the regime for sewage treatment discharges into our rivers should be more lax in any way than the regime for industrial discharges. It should not be the case that much more frequent monitoring should be required because of the possibility of defence by use of the look-up tables.
I am sorry to have gone into some detail in discussing these amendments, but that is essential in order to bring out the fundamental point that the Bill as drafted is not adequate to the tests which are now being required of river water quality. I do not want to go in detail over the ground which has already been covered in Committee and on Report. However, I remind the House that river water quality is still a matter of negotiation between the Government and the European Commission. It is still by no means certain that we have even the regime for improvement which the European Commission requires, let alone an adequate programme of investment within a satisfactory timetable. The acceptance of these amendments by the Government and the House would be a significant step forward in the improvement of river water quality in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I wish to support these amendments from these Benches for the simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated, the public should at least have the possibility of being able to bring a prosecution against someone who violates river water quality. As the new water companies will be private companies and will generate profits to shareholders, they should certainly be subject to the same stringent standards as are placed upon any other part of the private sector that is concerned with water.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is a complex matter and it is one, it seems to me, the solution to which must depend to a great extent on scientific advice. Speaking for myself, I do not have that at my disposal, but I should have thought that it would be a mistake to do away with the well-established system of look-up tables. I think that whatever else we do we ought to keep those.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has taken a great deal of trouble over this matter. I must
1272
confess that it is a complex matter and I do not follow all the implications of his amendments. The noble Lord seems to me to be suggesting an improvement of the system, but one which is perhaps not entirely practicable. I do not know whether it is feasible to have the frequent monitoring which would result from what he proposes.
It is obviously very important that we should improve the condition of our rivers and that pollution should be the subject of careful monitoring. But, of necessity, the precise condition of rivers, which all have a degree of bacteria—there are no rivers without some bacteria in them, and, alas, most rivers have a degree of chemical contamination, although very often it is extremely slight—is a question of judgment based upon scientific advice, which as I confessed I do not have. That is what is required in order to enable us to see whether this group of amendments is necessary.
This Bill is detailed enough in its injunctions to those who will bear a responsibility in future. On several previous occasions we have rather leaned against imposing on them what one can best describe as a counsel of perfection. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say, but I make a plea on behalf of those who are going to bear the actual responsibility that we should be moderate and sensible about this, although we are all agreed that we must take reasonable steps in order to reduce pollution of the rivers.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I recognise the logic of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, as the new companies will be operating for profit they should be subjected to the same discipline as industry is now in regard to their discharges. They should be required to observe a strict standard. Therefore, as the noble Lord rightly said, there is a change from the constitutional position of the regional water authorities which are now operating as public corporations pro bono publico. That is a fair point, but as my noble friend Lord Renton said, the practical difficulties are still the same. The industrial discharge emitted by an industry can be measured precisely, but monitoring in rivers is subject to a good many other factors. I mentioned in a debate on a similar subject yesterday that the volume of flow of a river varies dramatically from one time of the year to another. At times of low flow in the summer the flow will be half that in the winter, or even less.
Other minor crises occur in rivers when there is a storm. Storm waters flow through the streets in a town and they go down into the drains. Very few towns have one flow system for storm water and another for the sewers. Therefore, the flood of storm water goes down to the sewerage works and washes a whole lot of raw sewage out into the river. One cannot help it; it happens. The day may come when we have separate storm flow channels from those of the sewers, but it is a very long way off for pretty well every city in the country.
Those are just two small examples of what the regional water authority has to deal with now and the water company of the future will have to deal with. The same practical problems remain. The

1273
manager of the river; namely, the new water company, is the longstop who has to cope with everything. It just is not possible to observe the same precision of standards as is possible in an industry which has only its own effluent to manage. Industry should be able to manage its own industrial processes to conform with the regulations. However, even there there are difficulties; now and again something goes wrong, and if the incident is a bad one the river authority has trouble dealing with it.
Those are the problems. While my noble friend Lord Caithness has to stand up and make himself responsible for the profit motive of the future—which, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows, I do not think very much of—these are the facts which confront the water company of the future. The measure is justified on the grounds that the Bill will make management stronger and that greater incentives and greater efficiency will give the public better value. That is what we hope will happen, but for the moment my noble friend the Minister has to justify the profit motive. At the practical level I see the same necessity for some flexibility as there has been in the past. I am quite certain that that is why my noble friend Lord Caithness will feel that he must ask the House to accept that that is still necessary. I am sure it is. I look forward with interest to hearing his arguments, and I shall be prepared to support them.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the way in which he introduced the amendments. As your Lordships will have realised, it is only Amendments Nos. 132AA and 132AB which are consequential on Amendment No. 123B. The other two amendments are not consequential on each other or Amendment No. 123B but the noble Lord has sought to group them together for convenience of debate.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given the House an account of what constitutes a 'look-up' table. I shall not labour a detailed explanation today. Suffice it to say that a look-up table is simply an objective statistical procedure for seeking to give effect to the 95 percentile confidence level as to the results of a sample in circumstances where the number of samples vary. A condition based on a look-up table simply requires that in any series of samples taken over a particular period, normally a year, a particular and statistically sound proportion of samples shall comply in relation to the total number of samples taken and the confidence level required. In the Government's view it is as simple, innocuous and necessary as that.
The starting point is simply that no effluent—but above all no sewage effluent—is completely homogenous through time. It varies, of course, depending on a wide range of circumstances, which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has mentioned. Whatever the technical advances in sewage treatment, that is and will always remain the position. In these circumstances some Community legislation and some UK administration sets
1274
standards on the basis of 95 percentile compliance; namely, that a discharge should meet its required standard in at least 95 per cent. of samples.
But how is that to be judged? It is obviously a simple matter if, over a year say, exactly 100 samples are taken. But supposing that for sound operational and resource management reasons, only 12 monthly samples are taken, or 52 at weekly intervals, or supposing it is a very minor discharge which is sampled only three or four times a year. What then does the 95 per cent. represent? A look-up table simply says what, in the statistician's view, the 95 percentile represents in any series of samples taken over a relevant assessment period—normally a year—whether there were three samples, four, 12, 52 or whatever number your Lordships care to choose.
The Government's view is that the look-up table will in this way remove an element of arbitrariness from the assessment over time of the quality of either an effluent or a receiving water. It readily allows other elements of arbitrariness to be eliminated also. Use of this mechanism can ensure allowance is made for freak samples and for sampling error.
Against that background the House may appreciate why the Government consider that the look-up tables system is required. There are three reasons. First, historically, a large proportion of limits in consents have been set on the 95 percentile of observed performance. Surely compliance should therefore in appropriate cases, be judged on the same basis. Secondly, as I said, a number of Community directives require compliance to be measured on a 95 percentile basis. How can we do this without a look-up table? Thirdly, as I said at the beginning, effluents are inherently variable. You cannot judge the quality of a river from a single one-off sample. Nor will that in some cases be true of effluents.
It will not, of course, be appropriate to judge compliance of all effluent over time on a statistical basis. If the following circumstances are met it is not necessary and the single sample is appropriate. These are that the effluent is reasonably homogenous; that the flow can be cut off without unacceptable consequences; and that the discharger has full control over the effluent.
For most industrial effluents, those three conditions are or should be met, and look-up tables are not normally used by the water authorities. But the one area where, overwhelmingly, such conditions are not met is sewage effluents. Sewage effluents are not homogenous; the discharger does not have complete control over their composition; and he cannot simply terminate the flow. It is for these reasons that this mechanism has been used for sewerage effluents consents for some years past.
The approach is simply an attempt to apply reasonable statistical rules to circumstances where uncertainty and therefore statistical assessment is inescapable. Its introduction in 1985 was a step forward in the fair and reliable measurement of water and effluent quality. To withdraw it now would be wholly retrogressive.
I recognise that a number of criticisms have been made of the system. The first is that it is unfair because a similar system is not applied to industrial

1275
discharges. But as I have explained, they are different. Surely your Lordships would agree with me that fairness requires different approaches. Secondly, it is suggested that this stops an effluent being judged non-compliant. But the often quoted statistics of 20 per cent. non-compliance is based on this system, so that conclusion can hardly apply. Thirdly, it is said that it inhibits effective prosecution. But since Thames, North West and Anglian authorities have all been successfully prosecuted in respect of look-up table evidence, that argument also does not stand up.
For all these reasons, we regard these amendments as unreasonable and unsound. The NRA must be able to impose any reasonable conditions on consents, and in some circumstances look-up tables in some form, in the Government's present view, are likely to be necessary.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in that I do not claim that our present arrangements are perfect. We are inviting the NRA to review this and other aspects of consent formulation. That will be one of its early tasks. The NRA will no doubt consider very carefully, any conclusion arising from that review, as indeed will the Secretary of State, since he has to exercise appellant jurisdiction in this area. But to seek to rule out look-up tables in this way, at this time, would be retrogressive and unreasonable.
I turn now to Amendment No. 132CB. The NRA like the water authorities will take samples of two kinds—those for ordinary routine monitoring and those specifically with a view to prosecution. It is the Government's view that both kinds are of equal interest to the public and should be on the public registers. But clearly not all the samples taken by the NRA should be tripartite—that would be a pointless waste of resources. What is important is that those where there are grounds for considering a case for prosecution may arise should be tripartite.
To discharge its responsibilities under the Act, the NRA will have to take such number of tripartite samples as is necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act. They will go on the register. The register regulations, which we shall in due course lay before the House, will require that the NRA register identifies those taken tripartitely. Any person at all will be able to refer to them in court proceedings.
In those circumstances, I suggest that the underlying objectives of the noble Lord's amendment—I agree with him on them—are fully met, and that there is therefore no need to press the amendment. If his concern is that there be sufficient tripartite samples on register for enforcement, I can assure him that that will be the case. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and could have the effect only of greatly increasing sampling costs and potentially reducing the amount of routine, non-tripartite sampling undertaken.
Finally, I come to Amendment No. 124B. I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in putting forward the amendment. It is important that the NRA should undertake such an extent of monitoring as is necessary for ensuring
1276
effective pollution control. However, for that to be achieved, I suggest that the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.
The NRA will be the water pollution control authority for England and Wales. Discharges to controlled waters can be made only with its consent. The granting of such consents implies an inescapable obligation to monitor compliance with those consents. That means that it must monitor to the extent necessary to allow prosecution in appropriate cases. Whether those prosecutions are by the NRA or other persons will make no difference as the results will be there on the public register for all to use. The position of private prosecutors and their access through the registers to sample evidence will therefore be fully secured.
But the obligations on the NRA already in the Bill go wider than that. Noble Lords will see that, under Clause 105(1), it must exercise all its functions— including its monitoring duty—so as to ensure that the water quality objectives are achieved. That places on it an inescapable obligation to monitor to such extent as is necessary to secure effective control of pollution.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will consider carefully the assurances that I have given him, in particular, the assurance that the position of potential private prosecutors will be properly secured. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that his concerns are already covered.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will comment on the point made by his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford; namely that, in his reply, the Minister must justify the profit motive. The noble Lord said that twice. Presumably, if he said it twice, it was to justify the importance of the issue.
However, I have heard nothing at all in the Minister's reply that deals even faintly with the profit motive. His reply seemed to be pretty technical and I readily admit that the technical side escapes me all the time. But many of us on this side, and presumably all of us on these Benches, think that, if there is any justification whatever in the Bill—and we have shown our opposition to it—it will not improve the present situation at all. Some people might think that, if a profit is to be made, ipso facto, that will produce a more efficient system. Does the Minister agree that he has not dealt with that point made by his noble friend and, if so, will he deal with it now? After all, throughout the debate, we have heard praise from all sides of the House for the noble Lord. In my view, such praise is justified because of his experience in the water industry and his knowledge and interest. The Minister should at least reply to such a crucial point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I did not reply to the point made by the noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford because I was dealing specifically with the amendment. My noble friend was making a much wider point relating to the Bill and to other parts of the Bill that we have discussed at length. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington has read those accounts in the Official Report.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may just add a word of explanation and excuse for myself because I undoubtedly went a great deal wider than the amendment. However, there was an implication regarding that point in the rather ingenious speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was responding to that, but I do not think that my noble friend the Minister can be blamed for not dealing with that point because it is miles outside the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, perhaps I may rise to make one brief point. I entirely agree that the amendments should probably be rejected. However, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, I expressed my views about some of the shortcomings of the present system of look-up tables. The Minister spelt out in some detail the positive case for them. It is right to report that the Secretary of State has invited the NRAAC to begin an inquiry into the best way to administer the system of monitoring, including the use of look-up tables. He has asked that we should start such an inquiry and that it should be carried forward by the NRA.
I am sure that it is right to say that we shall look at the matter with a completely open mind, taking into account both the virtues and the demerits of the present system. I am sure that the NRA will come forward in due course with its report on the basis of the judgments that it makes. It does not feel committed either one way or the other to replacing or retaining the look-up tables system. The important point is to find a satisfactory definition of 95 percentile compliance that can be enforced and made to work in practice. That will not be a simple task. It is a complicated issue, but the NRAAC has been commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake such an inquiry and it has already set the task in hand.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. I heard this morning on Radio 4 that shrimps are now coming through the London taps. The system of which we are very proud in the Thames Water area appears to have been producing either something extra or something that was not expected. Is that in anticipation of the takeover, so that we now have a profit motive and the shrimps can be sold, or are they part of the effluent? I ask that question quite seriously because it is an interesting development. I find that shrimps are very expensive when I buy them in restaurants. I should be delighted if I turned on my tap tomorrow and received them free. The Minister refers to his great scientific brief and talks about look-up tables and the effect of sewage, but we want an improvement, if that is not too difficult. The amendments can do nothing but add to the quality of the river and the effluent. Perhaps the noble Lord will comment on that example.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for intervening. I try not to interrupt, but we are at the beginning of quite a long day of the Report stage. The Companion
1278
is quite clear that only the mover of an amendment may speak after the Minister has spoken at Report stage and at Third Reading unless by special leave of the House. This has been an extremely interesting exchange. I have enjoyed listening to it. That is why I have not interrupted it, but it is perhaps wise for me to remind noble Lords of our own rules in the Companion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I did not make the point myself because both of those interventions were peculiarly helpful.
I shall not put myself in the position of attacking the statistical basis of the Minister's defence of the existing monitoring procedures. I have earned my living from sample surveys for more than 30 years now. I certainly do not intend to criticise the use of 95 per cent. confidence limits when dealing either with human samples in social research or with a large number of sampling procedures for natural phenomena.
However, the issue with which we are concerned here is rather different. We are concerned with issues of public health. In a real sense, the discharges that take place into our rivers from sewage treatment plants are different from many of the other scientific processes whose control may properly be the subject of scientific sampling procedures.
I put to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who queried whether we were not being too demanding in these amendments, that in terms of public health the discharge from sewage treatment plants is very much on a level with industrial discharge. In other words, a single major defect could prove extremely damaging to public health and it ought not to be possible that remedial action could be delayed because a series of sampling procedures had not been completed.
On many of these issues and in respect of many of these discharges immediate action is required just as it is required for industrial discharges. The example, which has been used many times, of the discharge of dangerous chemicals into the water supply at Camelford remains a very good and convincing argument. I appreciate the validity of scientific sampling in its place and understand that for some purposes there might be advantage in a continuing programme of scientific sampling of river water quality. But for the purposes of enforcement of river water quality and the elimination of damaging and dangerous discharges, scientific procedures are not appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, called my speech ingenious. I do not think that he meant it as a compliment. In all sincerity I think that on public health grounds the analogy between industrial discharge and discharge from sewage treatment works ought to be an overriding public health consideration. Therefore, although I appreciate the skill with which the Minister has deployed the statistical argument, I do not feel that it is at all adequate to the case to which we refer in these amendments.
I am sorry to say that the Government have shown that in this case they are not prepared to apply the

1279
highest standards of control over defects in river water quality which the public will require. It is not that the Government do not know that there are serious issues at stake. In his intervention the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made it clear that the Government and the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee understand that there are issues still to be resolved because the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee has been asked to look into them. It would therefore not be inappropriate to continue that investigation. Of course that is very valuable.
Certainly there are circumstances in which it is desirable to improve statistical procedures. But the Government ought now to accept these amendments as an earnest of their intention to protect river water quality and to apply the same standards for sewage treatment discharge as they do for industrial discharge. In the absence of any movement from the Government in that respect—and I am afraid that there was no movement whatsoever in the Minister's reply—I think it necessary to take the opinion of the House on this amendment.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 123B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kearton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Longford, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carver, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ezra, L.

Phillips, B.

Falkland, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stedman, B.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Tordoff, L.

1280

Turner of Camden, B.

White, B.

Underhill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Vernon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Winstanley, L.

Walston, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Whaddon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kitchener, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Allerton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Lovat, L.

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Lurgan, L.

Atholl, D.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Auckland, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Balfour, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bellwin, L.

Margadale, L.

Beloff, L.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Middleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Caithness, E.

Montgomery of Aiamein, V.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Cayzer, L.

Norrie, L.

Cockfield, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perth, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundee, E.

Pym, L.

Eccles, V.

Radnor, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Effingham, E.

Reigate, L.

Elibank, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Saint Brides, L.,

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Foley, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathspey, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Trafford, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Ullswater, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kimball, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Commercial TV: Future
4.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement about the future of commercial television which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The White Paper proposed a two-stage procedure for awarding licences for Channels 3 and 5 under which applicants would have first to pass a quality threshold, consisting of positive programme and consumer protection requirements, and would then go on to offer financial tenders. The Independent Television Commission would be required to select the highest bidder.
"Many of those who commented on the White Paper expressed concern that these proposals might lead to a loss of quality in programming. We recognise that concern and believe that a case has been made out for strengthening the quality threshold. We do not consider it would be right to do so by adding more detailed requirements in the legislation to supply specific types of programme. We therefore propose to strengthen the quality threshold by broadening the third positive requirement in the paragraph 6.11 of the White Paper to read:
"to provide a reasonable proportion of programmes (in addition to news and current affairs) of high quality, and to provide a diverse programme service calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
It will be for applicants to interpret this combined quality and diversity test in drawing up their programme proposals. Those who fail to satisfy the ITC that they can meet this requirement will not have their financial bids considered.
"A number of suggestions have been made to us about the form that the financial bid should take. The Chairman of the IBA proposed that it should comprise a sum fixed by the ITC and a bid by the applicant of a percentage of advertising revenue. I support this combination of elements but, in order to improve the transparency of the bidding process, propose that they should be reversed. Accordingly, the ITC will fix a percentage of net advertising or subscription revenue for each licence to form the minimum sale price. Applicants will then be required to bid a lump sum which they would pay if successful in addition. For successful applicants, both sums will be paid annually over the period of the licence to avoid the imposition of debt burdens on licensees.
"Applicants will also be required to post a bond with their tender application. Successful bidders will be required to add to this an amount which, together with the first, will add up to a substantial performance bond. This requirement will strengthen the enforcement powers of the ITC. Those who fail to meet their programme promises given at the quality threshold stage will stand to lose a proportion of the bond.
"We have considered carefully the arguments about the criteria on which the tenders should be
1282
decided. I do not believe that at the tender stage, before it is clear to whom the licences will be awarded and before the nature of any network arrangement is known, it will be possible for the ITC to make fine distinctions between the quality of programme service offered by different applicants, all of whom will have passed the strengthened quality hurdle I have announced today. We must avoid a return to the opaque and sometimes arbitrary selection procedures of the past. But some flexibility needs to be written into the procedure. We propose therefore that the ITC should be required in the normal course to accept the highest bid, but that it should have a power in exceptional circumstances to select a lower bid. This power would operate only in exceptional circumstances and the ITC would be required to give its full reasons. Exercise of the power would be subject to judicial review. In addition, there would be an exceptional power for the Home Secretary, acting on the recommendation of the ITC, to veto the selection of the highest bid if its funding came from a source which was undesirable in the public interest.
"The White Paper proposed that in addition to the sum bid at tender applicants would have to make a levy payment to the Exchequer. The proposals I have announced for the fixing of a proportion of advertising or subscription revenue as part of the tender price overtake our original proposals for a levy. Successful candidates will have to pay only the two-part tender price I have outlined. There will be no levy in addition.
"There has been some speculation as to whether the Government would impose a moratorium on takeovers at the beginning of 1993 and whether they would insist on compulsory networking for Channel 3. The Government's view on both issues has not changed since the publication of the White Paper. I understand that the Chairman of the IBA is considering permitting takeovers in the period from 1990 to 1993, subject to the normal anti-monopoly rules and bearing in mind our proposals for the regime after 1992. It would not in these circumstances be either sensible or necessary to impose a moratorium thereafter. Networking will be a matter for the Channel 3 companies themselves to decide without government compulsion. Basic fair trading laws should ensure that no companies are excluded unfairly from any networking arrangements. We shall consider whether any further provisions are needed in the legislation to regulate the operation of any new network system in the interests of free access and fair competition.
"We have received a number of representations on behalf of the 4 million viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing. We agree that particular provision should be made for them. We have therefore decided that Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees should be required to provide teletext subtitling for some of the programmes in their schedules.
"The White Paper proposed that Channel 5 should be shared between at least two licensees. In the light of the start-up costs of the new channel and the competition it will face from the

1283
established terrestrial channels, we have now decided that Channel 5 should form a single licence. It will thus be better equipped to compete with the existing terrestrial channels.
"Similarly, the White Paper proposed that there should be a separate night hours licence for Channel 3. Many of those who responded to the White Paper expressed doubts about the financial viability of a separate night hours licence. We have accordingly looked at this again. We want to ensure so far as possible that the night hours are fully used. I accept the argument that they may be better exploited commercially if they are linked with services provided at a more commercially attractive part of the broadcasting day. We have therefore decided not to disturb the present situation under which the night hours may remain connected with the peak viewing period. This position will be reviewed if the night hours are not being fully exploited. Under our proposals, the ITC will be free to allocate licences for other times of the day, such as a breakfast time service.
"The White Paper proposed that the ITC would be responsible for the geographical division of Channel 3 into regions. This has been generally welcomed. The Government have noted with understanding the statement of the chairman designate of the ITC, Mr. George Russell, that he would see advantage in retaining the existing regions, if possible.
"I turn to Channel 4. The White Paper made clear the Government's intention to maintain the remit of Channel 4 while at the same time providing for the selling of its advertising separately from that on Channel 3. The White Paper proposed three options ranging from a fully independent commercial service licensed by the ITC, through an option linking Channel 4 with the new Channel 5, to an arrangement whereby Channel 4 would continue as a subsidiary of the ITC with a possible minimum guaranteed income.
"We have considered the comments we have received on these options and in particular the helpful report by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I have written today to the chairman of the Committee expressing the Government's gratitude for its work on Channel 4 and setting out the Government's decisions. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
"In considering the various options, the Government have decided that it would not be feasible at the present time for Channel 4 to become an independent commercial company competing with the other broadcasters if, as we think essential, it is to retain its remit. The financial outlook for Channel 4 remains uncertain with the prospect of new competition. We believe that the requirement in addition to provide a return for shareholders in a private company could put too much pressure upon Channel 4 finances and place its remit in serious jeopardy. But we see some difficulty in Channel 4 continuing to be owned by the authority which would be responsible for regulating its output; and we
1284
believe that any financial underpinning given to the channel should be carefully circumscribed to provide clear incentives for cost-efficiency.
"We have therefore decided that after 1993 Channel 4 should become a public trust, which would be licensed by the ITC, and would continue to provide the service set out in the special remit. Channel 4 would sell its own advertising, and would be subject to a baseline budget of 14 per cent. per annum of terrestrial net advertising revenue. The baseline could be amended in secondary legislation. If the channel's revenue fell below the baseline, the difference would be funded by the ITC to a maximum of 2 per cent. of terrestrial net advertising revenue levied on the Channel 3 companies. Any surplus revenues above the baseline would be shared equally between Channel 3 and Channel 4.
"The trust would be required to hold its share of any surplus revenues to be used as a first call in the event of deficits in later years. To reduce the need for a call on the guarantee, the ITC would be empowered to require cross-announcement of programmes between Channel 3 and Channel 4. Complementary scheduling would be possible, but would not be a requirement. The Channel 4 licence would run for 10 years, but these arrangements would be reviewed after seven. I believe that this is a satisfactory way of securing the future of Channel 4 with its present remit.
"The White Paper concluded that the arrangements for the Welsh fourth channel should remain unchanged. Some have argued that it would not be consistent with the new and more free approach to regulation for the channel to be funded by a direct subscription on the commercial companies. The situation is particularly anomalous in Scotland where the ITV companies are required to finance Welsh programmes as a first call on their resources before even they make provision for their own Gaelic speakers. The Government are sympathetic to these concerns, and have decided to make a small change to the funding arrangements for S4C. Henceforth, S4C revenues will not be charged as a first call on the commercial companies but will be funded out of the proceeds of the tender through the ITC.
"My Statement today covers most of the major decisions on the future commercial television system following the publication of the White Paper. We shall make announcements on the remaining issues, including the key issue of transmission and the future of broadcasting in Gaelic, before long. These decisions will be incorporated in new broadcasting legislation which the Government hope to bring forward in due course".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I am sure he will appreciate that it is a very long Statement to take in in such a short time. I shall do

1285
my best to comment on some of the points which have been made which differ from those in the White Paper.
One of the issues which concerns us all is the retention of the auction system for obtaining licences. I am pleased to note that the views of Mr. George Russell, the chairman designate of the IBA, and those of the other ITV companies have been taken into account, so that there is some improvement on the White Paper. Nevertheless, it seems to me that finance rather than quality permeates the whole scheme.
I am slightly perplexed by the paragraph concerning the strengthening of the quality threshold. It does not go much further than the original White Paper proposals. We do not know who will make the judgment of quality and the kind of judgment that there will be. We are told that it will be for applicants to interpret the quality and diversity tests in drawing up their programme proposals. What is important is the level at which the judgment and acceptance or rejection should be made.
The financial arrangements where the ITC will fix a percentage of net advertising for a minimum sale price seem to me to be something, without going into it very much further, on which one can for the moment withhold judgment. Applicants will be required to post a bond with their tender application, and I believe that is a positive point. One hopes that it will deter the Johnny-come-latelys and do something to strengthen and improve quality standards.
Concering the criteria on which tenders will be decided, one has to start commenting on that matter from the point at which the Government start. However, I should not have started from that point. We are still left with the licence by auction system. It is ironic to read in the White Paper, in paragraph 2.3:
"Two reports have been particularly influential in the recent debate about the future of broadcasting: the Peacock Report … and the main report of the Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into broadcasting".
As the noble Earl said, the Home Affairs Committee has been thanked. Sir Alan Peacock was appointed by the Government to carry out a survey into BBC radio and television but eventually his remit spread wider. It is interesting that he came out quite definitely against auctions as a means of awarding licences.
On page 3 of the Statement we see the sentence:
"We must avoid a return to the opaque and sometimes arbitrary selection procedures of the past".
Most people will agree with that sentence because no one has pretended that the previous procedure was perfect. However, I should like to know a little more about the "exceptional circumstances" in which the ITC will be able to select a lower bid. Twice in the Statement appears the sentence:
"This power would operate only in exceptional circumstances and the ITC would be required to give its full reasons".
I have no objection to it giving its full reasons but I should like to know at which level the "exceptional circumstances" rests.
1286
I am slightly worried and perplexed about the proposal that the power shall be subject to judicial review. That could have a deterrent effect and make the position of the ITC even more difficult when it decides that in exceptional circumstances it does not wish to accept the highest bid. The Statement also provides that:
"there would be an exceptional power for the Home Secretary, acting on the recommendation of the ITC, to veto the selection of the highest bid if its funding came from a source which was undesirable in the public interest".
I should like to know whether the Home Secretary could veto the selection of a bid not only on the basis that it came from a source which was undesirable in the public interest but also on the quality standards which are mentioned so often throughout the paper.
The proposal that there should be no levy in addition to the two-part tender price will be welcome. Of course, we already have the situation that networking is a matter for Channel 3 companies to decide without Government compulsion. We note that a number of representations were made on behalf of the 4 million viewers who are deaf and hard of hearing and that particular provision should be made for them. That is welcome news to us all. My only criticism is that I should like to see the provision go further.
Channel 5 will have a single licence. At first sight that appears to be a good idea but it is matter which we must consider. We can accept and live with the proposal that there should be a separate night hours licence for Channel 3.
The Statement continues:
"The White Paper proposed that the ITC would be responsible for the geographical division of Channel 3 into regions. This has been generally welcomed. The Government have noted with understanding the statement of the Chairman designate of the ITC, Mr. George Russell, that he would see advantage in retaining the existing regions, if possible".
I should like elucidation of the words "if possible" because I understood that the number of regions would be reduced.
I now turn to Channel 4. The Statement may be an improvement on the proposals contained in the White Paper but I still do not believe that it is good enough. In the White Paper the Government paid tribute to Channel 4, its success, its quality and good work. However, it will now come under closer supervision and I believe that it will be more difficult for the channel to fulfil its remit. I do not understand how the Conservative Government which introduced Channel 4—and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was then Home Secretary—can now, with their concentration on market forces and the monetary system, require it to sell its own advertising while, as a safety net, other competing companies will be able to come to its rescue. That does not appear to be in line with general Conservative Party policy, nor do I believe that it is good for Channel 4. It is a bad day for Channel 4. I still do not understand why the Government, which have applauded the work of Channel 4, do not leave it as it is. I am sure that everyone will agree that if something is working well it should be left alone.
I am also concerned about the trust which is being set up. Who will appoint the trustees? Will they be appointed by the Government or by representatives of Channel 4? I am pleased that the Welsh channel

1287
will remain unchanged, as will be my noble friend Lord Cledwyn.
The Statement is long and I do not wish to make an even longer speech. However, the main objection to it remains that, in spite of some of the alterations which are an improvement on the White Paper, it is more permeated by financial concerns than by quality. There is no mention of money which should be spent on good programming. I believe that our commercial television service will depreciate in quality, no longer being as good as it is now even with all its imperfections.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for repeating the extremely long and complex Statement. It consists of the Government's response to the observations they received from approximately 3,000 people and various bodies on the proposals outlined in the White Paper. It is also a response to many of the observations made by noble Lords during the debate in this House some time ago. At that time the principal anxiety expressed by noble Lords in all parts of the House concerned the proposal to auction the franchises to the highest bidder. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, that remains a worry.
We on these Benches were heartened when we saw the proposals put forward by Mr. George Russell. They appeared to attempt to safeguard programme standards and ensure that the main criterion of success in television would not be "the bottom line"—there would also be programme standards. However, we regret that Mr. Russell's proposals have not been completely accepted; they have been greatly modified. The Government's comments have been hedged in by many qualifications. At the end of the Statement concerning the auctioning of franchises the Government state:
"We propose therefore that the ITC should be required in the normal course to accept the highest bid, but that it should have a power in exceptional circumstances to select a lower bid".
Even that is hedged in with qualifications.
We on these Benches do not believe that the proposal goes far enough to meet the anxieties expressed by the various companies and by the Chairman designate, Mr. George Russell. We believe very profoundly that programme standards depend upon the hands in which control of broadcasting is laid. In due course we shall want to read those hands with very great care when they become available for inspection.
Another source of anxiety about the White Paper proposals dealt with at length in your Lordships' House and only in part referred to in the Statement was the possible plight of regional companies, an anxiety expressed very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, who said that under the proposals as they then were, with the possibility of the extinction of networking, the regional companies would just go out of business. I am very glad to see from the Statement that networking is to be continued, because without it the regional stations could not remain viable.
1288
I regret that the Statement does not show any proper understanding by the Government of what regional television actually is. Regional television is not parochial television merely with regional or local news. Regional television is really a matter of looking at national and international events through regional eyes and giving a regional flavour to universal themes, be they cultural, economic, political, industrial or otherwise.
As the person who presented the first series of television programmes which signed for the deaf I welcome the comment in the Statement about special proposals for the 4 million people in Britain who have hearing difficulties. It indeed is welcome.
However, it is clear from the Statement that we shall have many further opportunities to debate this matter. We are told that there will be further statements on individual matters not yet clarified and there will also in due course be legislation. At the moment I merely say that we have some anxieties because we are still not satisfied that the principal criterion will be programme standards and not just money.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept the problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and indeed other Members of the House have in digesting what is a very complicated and technical subject in the form of a Statement. I apologise for the length of it, but we thought it was right that your Lordships should know the details because of the anxiety which has been expressed. I realise that it is difficult to absorb this straight away.
Quite clearly, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, are concerned about the highest bidder and programme quality. The Government are also deeply concerned about the quality of programmes, and that is why we have made three additions to encourage programme quality and to make it more difficult for—I think that they were called this by some noble Lords—fly-by-night operators to function. The first addition is to add in the words to the White Paper—and the noble Baroness said that she did not see much in this—
"to provide a reasonable proportion of programmes (in addition to news and current affairs) of high quality".
That will be part of the test which any applicant has to pass; that is, he must show that his programmes are to be of high quality.
He then has to put in a bond, and he may forfeit part of that bond if he does not come up to the expectations of his tender if he is accepted. Indeed, he may lose the whole of the bond, so that is a positive incentive to the successful applicant to ensure that his programmes are of high quality.
The third addition is that there are occasions when the ITC could choose somebody other than the highest bidder. The noble Baroness, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, were concerned that that is auctioning for the highest price. There is now a change between what has happened before and what is proposed at present. Before it was subjective and now it is objective. Of course finance comes into the matter but it is considered proper, provided

1289
people have shown that they are perfectly good at their quality standards and that their range of programmes is right, to accept the highest bidder with the caveat that in certain circumstances the highest bidder may not be chosen. The noble Baroness asked whether that would be open to judicial review. It would be open to judicial review, as this Statement makes perfectly clear.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Home Secretary could veto applicants on the matter of programme content and quality as well as on the money coming from undesirable sources. He cannot and will not. His veto will refer only to applicants whose money comes from sources against the public interest.
The noble Baroness also asked who will appoint the trustees. They will be appointed by the government of the day. If she thinks that the government will fill it up with their own lackeys, I can assure her that that is not so, as she will see if she looks at the vice-chairman of the BBC and the previous chairman of the IBA. I realise that there are many questions to be answered and many points about which your Lordships will be concerned, but I believe that it would be inappropriate to go on for too long on this matter and I hope that I have answered the main substance of the questions asked.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I should like to ask him one question. How many licences will the companies be allowed to apply for? At present they can apply for only two franchises. The rumour is that it will be multiple, and I should like to have the answer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I could reply to the noble Baroness after I have heard the other questions.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in the interests of the House, perhaps I may briefly say this. First, as one of those who has believed consistently since the Government's proposals were first put forward that any question of sale to the highest bidder without clear safeguards would endanger quality, perhaps I may say that I welcome the safeguards which have been produced. Of course we shall need to study them very carefully, but they are a step in the right direction. Those of us with experience of television in the past, as I have, were very worried indeed about sale to the highest bidder alone without safeguards. I hope that the safeguards will prove sufficient, although they should obviously be considered more carefully. However, initially one must welcome them. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I do not take her pessimistic view, but perhaps she would not expect me wholly to do so. I believe that the safeguards are important, and I welcome them.
Secondly, I was the person who originally set up Channel 4's remit and that of the Welsh fourth channel. There were many other people, including the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who took a part in ensuring that I took the right course over Welsh television and not the wrong course, which I was likely to take previously. Both those cases required
1290
that some very careful consideration was given to the White Paper as originally put forward. At this stage perhaps I may welcome what I believe to be, as I heard it, a move in the direction of retaining Channel 4's particular financing in order that it can fulfil its remit, and I hope also in making it quite clear that the Welsh channel can continue as it does at present. In my judgment any other decision would be totally disastrous and quite wrong.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend whose experience of these matters is remarkably wide. I am grateful to him for his welcome for the increased safeguards. Like all Members of your Lordships' House, he is concerned that standards should be high, and I hope that it will be shown that these additional safeguards that have been introduced will achieve that.
I am also grateful to my noble friend for his welcome as regards Channel 4. Of course we realise the specific problems of Channel 4 and we are equally concerned to see that its remit stays as it is in the manner in which it presently operates.
The noble Baroness asked me how many licences can be applied for. The answer is that the company can apply for as many as it wants.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to clear up one point on the interesting and important matter to which he referred of the right and duty of the Home Secretary to veto the grant of a licence in certain circumstances. I understood him to say that the ground for exercising the veto would be that the source of finance for the applicant was inappropriate. Does that mean a source of finance perhaps from an unfriendly foreign power, or does it go wider and involve a judgment about sources of finance in this country; for example, those concerned with very low grade entertainment?
I also understood the noble Earl to say—I hope that I misunderstood him—that the Home Secretary's power of veto could only be exercised with the consent of the ITC. Surely the Home Secretary, who is responsible to Parliament, should have the full responsibility in these important circumstances for exercising the veto if necessary, without the consent of any other outside body.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter understandably misunderstood the long and convoluted Statement. I said that there would be an exceptional power for the Home Secretary, acting on the recommendation of the ITC, to veto the selection of the highest bidder if its funding came from a source which was undesirable in the public interest.
If the Home Secretary wished to make a veto, there is no question that it could only be done with the agreement of the ITC. If the ITC informed the Home Secretary that the funding from such an applicant would come from sources which were undesirable, he could then pass a veto. I am thinking primarily of disguised funding coming from an undesirable source which is politically opposed to the continuance of good government in the United

1291
Kingdom; for example, groups connected with terrorism. It would be for the ITC to alert the Home Secretary to such a problem whenever it arose.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest as the director of an independent television company which makes a weekly programme for people with disabilities, which goes out on the commercial network.
I welcome the proposals for the deaf and hard of hearing. Could the noble Lord tell the House how it is proposed under the new arrangements to protect the interests of what are sometimes described as the minority programmes for the disabled, the ethnic minorities and the like?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that that would be a matter for the ITC to consider. There will be a requirement that Teletext subtitles should be provided on certain programmes. It is for the ITC to consider other requirements.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to clarify his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I understood the noble Earl to say that a consortium of companies could apply for as many franchises as it liked. It is reasonable that one should be able to apply for a number of franchises, but how many would be allocated? The concern is that one consortium may have control over more than one franchise.
A second point which occurs to me is the right of veto in the public interest. The noble Earl spoke of sources which were against the good government of this country, which may have terrorist finance. Does he include sources which already have substantial media interests? It is extremely important that control of the media should not be further consolidated and made more concentrated than it is now. Many noble Lords are anxious about the degree of concentration of control of the media. Does the power of veto cover an ability on the part of the Government to prevent a further concentration in the control of the media?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, people may apply for as many franchises as they like, but no more than two Channel 3 licences can be approved. They would not be two large ones or contiguous to Channel 3. With regard to the right of veto, the separate proposals announced on 19th May will restrain cross-media ownership. I think that covers the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I think I am right in saying that large newspaper groups may only hold 20 per cent. of the stake in the advertising industry.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would my noble friend go a little further on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? It is a two-way movement. It cannot be left to the ITC. It does not have the sources of intelligence and other information which are available only to the Home Secretary and perhaps the Prime Minister. It must be possible for people to feed information to the ITC about the people
1292
making applications and where the money comes from, without being probed as to how they know about it. Surely the initiative can come from the Home Secretary to the ITC, which can inform people that something may be undesirable, and in the reverse direction also.
One should look with some scepticism and wish well the judges who are going to make this very difficult choice. The IBA was not altogether successful when TVAM dressed up its application in very glowing terms. Suddenly it found that it was grossly overmanned; that it had over-egged the pudding in more ways than one, and it had to cut everything to a bare skeleton. The IBA then said that it would risk its franchise if it continued to curtail the standards of its programme in conformity with its monetary sources. That was built up again and became a perfectly respectable and successful programme.
The ability to tell the story seems to me to be a very difficult matter to judge, however wise the judges and whatever their perspicacity. One wishes them well. I welcome the safeguards put forward because when this was debated every part of the House was concerned that it should not only be a financial consideration with the person with the longest purse winning the race. This Statement seems to be a sensible compromise, although we need to study such a long Statement very carefully before we fully understand it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the people who have to make the judgments on these tenders are not in a very enviable position. I do not think that they were under the old regime. All one can do is invite people to tender, to say what they are going to do and to make the hurdles as strong as possible. Sometimes that has been shown to be unsuccessful. We hope that under these new arrangements the opportunity for having good quality programmes has been made as strong as possible.
Of course there is a financial incentive and finance is bound to play a part. I would not seek to disguise that fact. I hope your Lordships will agree that these measures will go a long way to meet concerns, but inevitably any choice like that can never be a certainty.
My noble friend asked whether my right honourable friend the Home Secretary could take action on the veto if he thought it appropriate to do so. The whole purpose behind the Statement is that the information about financing of the new companies is bound in the first instance to come to the ITC. If the ITC is alerted to the fact that the finance is not all that satisfactory, it will contact the Home Secretary. If my right honourable friend were to hear something in advance, he would speak to the chairman of the ITC. It is not only one-way traffic. The whole purpose is to ensure that contestants do not operate with money that has come from unsavoury sources which are against the interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how the new formula for funding will affect

1293
the revenue payable at present to S4C? Will it be more or less on the same level as it is at present?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the funding will be very similar to what is being done at present. But if there should be a shortfall the S4C will be able to make a call to the ITC. The funding will be similar to what it is at the moment.

Water Bill
4.50 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 104 [Water quality objectives]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 123C:
Page 113, line 28, at end insert ("not later than the transfer date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we move from broadcasting quality back to water quality. I promise to take very much less time than was spent discussing broadcasting. Clause 104 deals with classification of the quality of water. I understand that a classification system already exists within the 10 statutory bodies. Under the clause the Secretary of State can serve a notice on the authority setting out the various classifications described in the previous clause besides a date on which they are to come into force.
This amendment seeks to fix the date at that on which the authorities change status to plcs—in other words the transfer date—which one assumes, barring accidents, may well be November 1989 rather than, as I believe the Government have in mind, 1992. The amendment seeks to bring the transfer into force in November 1989 or thereabouts whenever the companies become plcs. That is the objective and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I thought that the National Rivers Authority was to carry out its survey in 1990.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in responding I can only reiterate the three overwhelming considerations which, in our view, lead me to suggest to the House that the amendment is not an appropriate one. First, we regard it as essential that the NRA should be up and running and able to advise the Secretary of State as to what the objectives should be, as my noble friend Lord Balfour has just reminded us. In fact we debated this matter in connection with an earlier amendment. The objectives constitute an important long-term commitment for the authority and it would be unreasonable not to have its full advice in setting them.
Secondly, we regard it as appropriate that there should be a full measure of public consultation which again would be precluded by this amendment. And finally we believe it right that the Secretary of State
1294
should have available the results of the national river quality survey, which will begin next year, in setting the objectives. I accept that it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, to question what will be the interim position until the new formal objectives are in place. During the interim period the NRA will have available, and will act in the light of, the informal objectives which the water authorities currently operate. These are sufficient and adequate for the interim period and nothing is lost by this procedure.
The nub of the matter is however quite simple. It is that if the NRA is to have a say (as it should) in the setting of the objectives, they must be set after transfer. But I give the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, the assurance that, subject to the need for public consultation and due consideration by the NRA, we shall proceed as expeditiously as possible with the setting of the objectives. Much is gained by following this approach and, as I have said, nothing is lost by it.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, it is helpful to have that statement from the Minister in the Official Report. I thank him for it. If I had spoken longer I would have pointed out that, even if the existing classifications were to be taken as gospel and brought into effect as I suggested, they could have been amended by this self-same Clause 104 at subsection (4). I take on board everything that the Minister said. I welcome his remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 [General duties to achieve and maintain objectives, etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 114, line 29, after ("above") insert (", or in a notice under section 30C of the Control of Pollution Act 1974,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It will require the Secretary of State for the Environment and the National Rivers Authority to exercise their control of pollution powers to ensure, so far as is practicable, that not only the statutory quality objectives for England and Wales are met, but also that those for Scotland are met. The principal effect of this amendment will be to require the Secretary of State and the NRA to take into account Scottish water quality objectives when considering whether or not to grant a consent to discharge effluent into waters near Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am rather intrigued by this amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Arran for giving some explanation of it. The proposed new Section 30C appears in Schedule 23 at the bottom of page 305. Clause 105 has almost identical wording to that of the proposed new Section 30D at the bottom of page 306. If it is necessary for these functions to extend on both sides of the Border then I suggest that Clause 105 of the Bill should be applied to Scotland by means of a final clause to the Bill. If that is not desirable, your Lordships might wish to look at the end of Clause

1295
105(1). I shall read the last part of Schedule 23 where the proposed new Section 30D(1) states that,
"the water quality objectives specified for any waters in a notice under section 30C above are achieved at all times".
If that is to be accepted I wonder whether Clause 105 should not be included in the last part of what I have just read out concerning Schedule 23 in order to remove any doubt. Equally, and while I am still on my feet, as I understand the position Schedule 23 dealing with the Control of Pollution Act 1974 appears to apply to Scotland only. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that in Schedule 27 at page 399, Sections 31 to 42 of that Act are being repealed so far as England is concerned.
However, Scotland will be covered in this schedule. I do not want to create doubt but I think it should be quite clear that the Secretaries of State, acting jointly, cover both sides of the Border. It should be borne in mind that the Tweed and its tributaries are outside the scope of the NRA. They are regulated by the River Tweed commissioners and are subject to Scottish fishery laws. However, the River Esk, sometimes referred to as the South Esk, although it is almost entirely in Scotland, is within the area of North-West Water. I am sorry that my questions are rather technical but we should make quite certain that this area of pollution is adequately covered on both sides of the Border.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balfour was good enough to let me have in writing both the points that he has raised in the past two or three minutes. We too do not wish there to be any doubt about this provision. My noble friend asked why the amendment is necessary when there is in Schedule 23 a comparable provision applying to the Secretary of State. The point is that Clause 105 applies the duty to have regard to Scottish river quality objectives to the NRA, which is not covered by the Schedule 23 Scottish provisions. My noble friend also asked why we are repealing the provision in the Border Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 for joint boards of pollution control officials. The fact is that no such board has ever been established, so there is no evidence of a need for the provision. The English and Scottish authorities fully consult each other on matters of common interest, despite the absence of any formal consultation mechanism. I hope that both those explanations satisfy my noble friend.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am most grateful. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 124A:
Page 114, line 32, at end insert—
("(3) Save as provided by Chapter 1 of Part III of this Act, after the transfer date, no right to pollute water shall be lawful.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to clear up a point that is left over by common law. At present common law allows landowners whose land is situated on a river bank to discharge effluents into it. If he does this in the
1296
same way for more than 20 years, he acquires a legal right to pollute that river even if it adversely affects people downstream. These rights will of course be subject to the statutory controls imposed by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and now Clause 104 of the Bill. Thus if consents are granted for less pollution than has been discharged, up until that point he must comply with them and his common law rights will not act as a defence against prosecution in a criminal case.
However, these rights still exist, either because they are considered unimportant or for some other reason. In these more environmentally conscious days these existing rights are no longer relevant and they encourage people to pollute rivers rather than to take measures to improve the quality of our river system. Thus these rights should surely be abolished. I beg to move.
Lord Renten: My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord is getting at, but, with great respect, I do not think that his amendment is acceptable. There is no right anywhere to pollute water, even under ancient common law. Of course there were some forms of pollution which in common law people did not trouble to enforce. One wishes that they had done but there has never been a right to pollute water. Therefore, the amendment is itself a contradiction. What the noble Lord is perhaps getting at is that after the transfer date no pollution of water shall be lawful. But even that does not help us because no pollution of water is lawful anyway. It is a question of controlling the amount of pollution, which in broad terms is written into the Bill, and finding the degree of pollution and so on. In any event, even if one accepts the noble Lord's point, I do not think that the amendment is necessary to achieve the object that he has stated.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as indeed we did in Committee. I can assure him that we have looked at the matter further between then and today. My noble friend Lord Renton answered his point far better than I could. However, perhaps I may try to add to what my noble friend said.
The essential position is that a private right to pollute—gained, for example, through the making of a discharge over many years—confers no right to pollute without a consent under Chapter I of Part III of the Bill. However, what it does is to secure the discharger from being sued by riparian owners and others in respect of damage done to them. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it is a pity that some people did not take action earlier. In addition I would put it to the noble Lord that it would be inappropriate in this Bill to interfere with private civil rights.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the Minister have said, I accept that I do not have quite enough legal skill and that I perhaps should have taken greater care over the drafting of the amendment. Before I withdraw it, I should like to say that there is still the

1297
danger that if we still have these rights the balance of a river could still be affected. That is what I was trying to get at but I accept that the amendment is not quite appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 124B not moved.]
Clause 106 [Offences of polluting controlled waters etc.]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 115, line 15, leave out ("not less than three months' ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 128 have been tabled because in Committee the Government said that we had a point when we introduced amendments to give a permissive power to introduce an immediate enforcement on an order to stop a discharge. The Government thought that the wording did not fit well enough into the Bill. I hope that our wording today is more appropriate and that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am particularly concerned about Amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which leave out the words,
"not less than three months' ".
Clause 115(2) deals with a code of practice and refers back to Clause 106(2)(a) and (b). I should not like that time limit of "not less than three months" to be restrictive to any greater extent than it already is under the codes of good agricultural practice in Clause 115.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government do not agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour. We agree with the points which were made in Committee and which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has reiterated today. We are fully persuaded that there needs to be an emergency procedure for the NRA to operate in the case of "relevant prohibitions" under Clause 106 when the normal three-month period for their coming into effect could give rise to unacceptable risks. It is for that reason that we fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We also hope that it will be accepted by the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 115, line 18, leave out ("not less than three months' ")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 115, line 27, at end insert—
("(2A) A notice given for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) or (b) above shall expire at such time as may be specified in the notice; and that time shall not be before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the notice is given except in a case where the Authority is satisfied that there is an emergency which requires the relevant prohibition in question to come into force at such time before the end of that period as may be so specified.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 115, line 28, leave out from ("Where") to ("for") in line 29 and insert (", in the case of such a notice for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) or (b) above as (but for this subsection) would expire at a time which is or is after the end of the said period of three months, an application is made before that time").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 128A:
Page 116, line 5, at end insert—
("(6) Notwithstanding the fact that proceedings in respect of an offence under this Section may have been commenced or are pending, whenever the Authority apprehends that a contravention of subsection (1) of this section (whether a new contravention or a repetition or continuation of one which has already occurred) is likely to occur, the Authority may apply to the Court and the Court (if satisfied of the matters complained of by the Authority) may make an Order designed to prevent, remove or otherwise eliminate the grounds of complaint, or such other Order as the Court thinks fit.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this issue was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill on 23rd May. I have therefore been briefed on the matter since I believe that there was general support for the objective behind the amendment. However, I should like to address two difficulties which were raised in Committee. The first was the technical and legal difficulty. While supporting the spirit of the amendment, my noble friend Lord Renton made the point that difficulties may arise if the NRA seek to take civil proceedings at the same time as criminal proceedings. After taking advice on the matter, the contents of Amendment No. 128A have been revised so as to take account of my noble friend's point.
The second issue which was raised was in connection with the Minister's response. He indicated that there were sufficient powers available to the NRA by virtue of Clause 114 of the Bill (anti-pollution works and operations). However, having examined more closely the provisions of that clause, I should also point out to the Minister that Clause III is not adequate since it requires the NRA to carry out works and to rely upon the fact that it may be able to recover the expenses involved from the polluter, whereas my amendment would require the polluter to carry out the necessary works to prevent pollution actually occurring That seems to me to be more sensible.
The example given in Committee illustrates the point well. It concerns a recent major pollution incident on the rivers Little Ouse and Sapiston at Drinkston, near Bury St. Edmunds in Suffolk where pig slurry polluted 40 kilometres of river and resulted in the deaths of thousands of fish. Sadly this occurred in a river which the water authority had only just restocked. Moreover, although the farmer concerned is to be prosecuted, he has already been fined by the courts on four separate previous occasions for causing pollution and therefore it seems unlikely that this will deter him in the future.
There is a real need for Parliament to give the NRA the necessary powers to seek an injunction from the courts to prevent a pollution. That of course would have to be subject to the usual safeguards and the ultimate decision on whether an injunction should be granted would be a matter for the judge to decide. At present, the authorities have to rely upon bringing criminal proceedings which are often slow—indeed,

1299
cases can take anything from six to 12 months to come before the courts—and which result in fines averaging only £500 to £1,000 being imposed. That is an inadequate deterrent compared with the profits which can be derived from continuing to pollute.
I have no doubt that such powers would only be rarely used, nevertheless they would be available to the NRA in appropriate circumstances. I am advised that such a facility was indeed available to river authorities by virtue of Section 3 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, but that it was somehow removed by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Therefore I urge the Government to give the NRA this facility which would clearly demonstrate the Government's previously declared commitment to the creation of a strong NRA with teeth. This amendment is consistent with the theme that the polluter pays. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am thoroughly convinced by the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness. I hope that she has got the wording right and that if she has the Government will accept what she said. However, if the wording is not right, I hope that they will find a way to put it right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. The need for it arises from the ancient rule that when criminal or civil proceedings are both possible the criminal proceedings must be disposed of first, unless statute provides otherwise. However, in a case such as the one which this amendment covers we could find that there may be a delay—the usual kind of delay which, I am afraid, takes place in criminal proceedings—and therefore we must bear in mind that there may also be a time-lag.
There may also be the uncertainty of success in the criminal proceedings, bearing in mind the technicalities and details of the Bill. However, if the water authority is able to go to the civil court for an injunction, then that time-lag and that uncertainty will matter much less. It really is in the public interest that an amendment along these lines be accepted.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should also like to support this amendment. It seems to me that if someone disobeys an injunction issued by the civil courts, the powers of the civil courts on this occasion would be much stronger and much more drastic and draconian than those of the criminal court. Therefore, incidents such as the one described by my noble friend Lady Blatch, where a thoroughly irresponsible farmer has been umpteen times fined only small amounts of money, could perhaps be prevented. That would enhance the Government's newly-found green image.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch raised the point in Committee that present control of pollution legislation does not provide for injunctions to be sought in the sort of cases to which she referred. I have to say, as we said then, that this raises significant issues, and that we do see some
1300
merit in the arguments the proposers are putting to us.
We are considering the issues carefully, but my noble friend may understand if I add that it will inescapably take more time. I may be able to offer a firm view at Third Reading, but I have to say that in view of its potentially wide implications, were we to decide that something should be done, it might need to be pursued within wider environmental legislation which may come forward in a later Session.
I am sorry that I cannot be more strident on this occasion, but I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will recognise that we are making a wide and significant proposal.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am encouraged by the Minister's reply. I think that it is in everyone's interest that where there is positive or wilful pollution some kind of swift and positive action is taken. I think that expectations have now been considerably raised. I also believe that there is support on all sides of the House for making the polluter pay where it can be proved that there has been a wilful or positive breach of conditions.
I therefore hope that my noble friend will be able to find an appropriate form of words. I am encouraged that something will happen between now and Third Reading. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Authority for discharges and other defences for the purposes of section 106]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 128B:
Page 116, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this issue was raised by Mr. Tim Boswell MP, and others, in another place on 22nd March 1989. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook also made reference to it during the Second Reading of the Bill in this House. He also moved the present amendment in Committee on 23rd May.
As the House will know, the whole country is keenly interested in the protection of our environment and that obviously includes the prevention of pollution of our rivers. I readily accept that there must be, as indeed the Bill recognises, valid defences available to those who discharge into our rivers provided, of course, that those discharges are made in accordance with the permissions and consents granted by the competent pollution control authority, which in the future will be the NRA.
However, it is equally important, if not more important, that there should be no loopholes in the legislation which would enable an unscrupulous discharger to take advantage of the law. Sadly, I believe that to be the present situation under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in the case of waste disposal sites. With the Bill, the opportunity exists to plug that loophole—Clause 107(1)(b)—in the case of site disposal licences.
As the House will be aware, when a site disposal operator wishes to set up a new site he applies to the

1301
local authority, not the water authority, for a site disposal licence.
As a related aside, as a former member of Cambridgeshire County Council, I was distressed by a system which allowed an applicant to apply to build a golf course by infilling. The planning application for the golf course was granted, despite the fact that the intention was to operate a waste disposal site for many years. Because planning permission had been granted, the waste disposal licence was automatic, and that is on a site which has a history of leachate problems and poor management. However, at the end of that waste disposal operation, however many years it takes, there is no requirement to build a golf course. If the amendment does anything to ensure that, if there are any breaches in the running of the site, they will be dealt with, I hope that it will receive the support of the House.
Once the disposal officer has obtained that licence he is free to set up his new site. The House will be only too well aware of the problems that have been experienced in recent years with such sites; for example, the lack of after-care by owners, who often complete a site and go away. The problem can continue for many years. However, it is to the problem of pollution from such sites that I now wish to refer.
I am aware of such problems that emanate from the seepage of toxic waste through teachings from such sites. That has resulted in pollution not only of adjoining watercourses but of (groundwater) public water supplies, as well as the destruction of fish stocks. An example is to be found at Rushton in Northamptonshire.
I therefore welcome Amendment No. 363, which was moved by the Government in Committee. It goes some way towards meeting the objective of the original amendment, which is now retabled in its original form. I say that it goes some way because it has the effect of removing the defence afforded by Clause 107 in the case of discharges under Clause 106(1)(b) and (d). However, I regret to have to say that it still does not meet the substantive issue raised by the amendment; namely, leachates from waste disposal sites which do not take place in the form of discharges but are more in the nature of seepages from such sites.
Consequently, as presently drafted (even allowing for government Amendment No. 363) the defence afforded by Clause 107(1)(b) would still be available in respect of an offence under Clause 106(1)(a).
In my view, it would be wrong to allow site operators to continue to enjoy immunity from prosecution by the NRA for causing pollution merely because they held a site disposal licence. I therefore commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am not sure about the amendment. I should like to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say. I must point out that if it were accepted, then on Third Reading we should have to make some consequential
1302
amendments; for example, the next four lines (19 to 22 inclusive) would have to be left out and the definition in subsection (9) would also have to be left out.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to remove the exemption available in the Bill as drafted in respect of all pollution offences in Clause 106 provided by possession of a waste disposal licence under Part I of the Control of Pollution Act.
We believe that the amendment goes too far. The Bill now provides that such exemption shall not apply in respect of discharges of trade or sewage effluent, or other matter, on waste disposal sites; but we believe that an exemption should be available in respect of casual entries of polluting matter under Clause 106(1)(a), because those are essentially matters which will be covered by the site licence granted to a disposal site. The water authorities now, and the NRA in due course, are statutory consultees able to require—subject to the final view of the Secretary of State—inclusion in the licence of any particular conditions that they consider necessary for preventing water pollution. If the amendment were accepted we would have the unsatisfactory result that a site licence holder could be prosecuted for pollution even though he was complying with conditions of a licence (agreed by the NRA) intended to prevent such pollution. That surely cannot be right.
Half the amendment is already achieved by the clause as it stands: that a site licence should not provide a defence in respect of discharges under Clause 104(b), (c) and (d). That will mean that the NRA will have direct control of all discharges on waste disposal sites and that the dischargers will need a consent under this Act. That is, I suggest, the right balance, is consistent with the position in current legislation, and is as far as we can go at this point.
As we said in Committee, we recognise that there have been criticisms of the working of the pollution control arrangement for land waste sites and that the water authorities have concerns about them. Those have of course been expressed recently in a report of the Environment Select Committee in another place. Nevertheless, we believe the present relationship between water pollution and land waste to be basically sound, and that would be substantially reproduced if the clause remains unchanged.
However, the inter-relation of the separate controls on land waste and on water pollution control is clearly a matter to which the Government may need to return in the context of proposals for integrated pollution which may be the subject of legislation in another Session. All the considerations raised can be looked at in that context. That is the context in which to do it rather than here. As I have said, we do not believe that the issue can be pursued here without producing unacceptable conflicts between regulatory systems.
For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there appears to be agreement that there has been a difficulty and that the management of the sites could be improved. I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer. I clearly need to read the Bill more carefully to see whether the objectives that I wish to achieve by the amendment can be achieved by the Bill as drafted or by the changes that may be brought about by the Government. The pollution control arrangements are not sufficiently stringent. I hope that the new arrangements and the powers given to the NRA, particularly by injecting conditions into the licence, which I believe to be important, will be sufficient. I shall read carefully what my noble friend has said and re-read the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 128C.
Page 116, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are dealing with Clause 107 which relates to exclusions in respect of pollution. We discussed waste from disused coal-mines in Committee. I must confess that I cannot remember what decision we reached. Clause 107(4) states:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 106 above by reason only of his permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters".
We may live to regret allowing that provision to remain in the Bill. I have an expert next to me who tells me that the coal board has been trying to deal with the problem for a long time. The 1981 report Coal and the Environment states:
"At some places, after a time, the water rises to the surface and breaks out as an uncontrolled flow. Unfortunately, due to the much longer retention time (possibly for a number of years) and greater contact area with the coal workings, the water can absorb the considerable amount of metals in a soluble form including iron and aluminium. It also develops a highly acidic character. When released to the atmosphere, where it can absorb oxygen, and with dilution of the acidic strength by other more alkaline waters, the metals are thrown from solution and deposited as oxide sludge commonly known as ferruginous or ochre sludges. Where older workings have also been 'heated' or are on fire a much greater uptake of metal may occur. The resulting pollution can be very serious, can persist for years and can be costly to deal with".
That is presumably the reason why the Government say that this could be an exclusion area because it is a very difficult subject to deal with. Surely we ought to bring it to finality in some way or another. If it is not acceptable totally to delete the clause, I think that we need something rather more definite from the Government to the effect that a period of time will be given when pollution from disused coal mines will no longer be permissible. It is obviously a very serious matter. I very much hope that the Government will bring forward some definite statement to that effect. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Ross, sits down, I should like the opportunity of asking him to look at the bottom of page 123, Clause 114(4). Incidentally, Clause 114 should have the title,
"Anti-pollution works and operations",
1304
which was left out in the reprinting. Again, this refers to the great problem of abandoned mines. The trouble is that very often they have been in existence for many years and nobody knows who the owners are. I have considerable concern that if the amendment is accepted it will somewhat alter the position in Clause 114.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balfour, has raised the very important point that we must be consistent in the Bill. What most impresses me about the amendment is that it carries the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, with his tremendous experience of the mining industry.
However, I should have thought from my knowledge, such as it is—and I went down many coal mines when I had a responsibility for safety in mines many years ago—that generally speaking it is impossible to prevent water from seeping from an abandoned mine into underground deposits upon which we may rely for drinking water. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, raised a very important point when he mentioned dangerous chemicals being left in an abandoned mine. I should have thought that was the point on which we should concentrate rather than trying, as is the effect of the amendment, to make it an offence and to make any seepage from an abandoned mine into a contravention. I should have thought that we should be careful about that. We might be attempting the impossible.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I wish briefly to support the amendment. I brought forward a similar amendment in Committee and raised the point that it is rather difficult to tell exactly what is an abandoned mine and whether, first the minerals had stopped being worked and then it was abandoned or whether, as my noble friend Lord Renton just stated, the mine was abandoned when it was used for storing waste of one sort or another. There is a very good case for playing safe and taking subsection (4) right out of the Bill. There is a danger here from abandoned mines that have no waste in them—and I believe there are examples of that in the country—and a great danger from a mine which is not considered abandoned because it has been filled up with rubbish or toxic waste of one sort or another. Therefore I give my support.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this is a difficult area to which many noble Lords have drawn our attention. However, my first observation must be to draw noble Lords' attention to the terms of the exclusion, in particular the reference to "committing". It does not cover cases where a person may have caused such a discharge, which remains an offence. Secondly, it should be recognised that the number of persons who might in the absence of this exclusion be liable under Clause 106 is potentially wide, and includes a variety of persons with rights over land who nonetheless could not reasonably be expected to take positive action to prevent the minewater discharges in question. It is broadly for those reasons that these exclusions have been on the face of legislation for some considerable time, and why we believe it would be inappropriate

1305
to accept the amendment proposed, removing this exclusion.
However, perhaps noble Lords will allow me to say something about the underlying problems. The problem of abandoned mines is an intractable one. There are abandoned mineral workings in many parts of the country of varying degrees of antiquity. They share a number of complex and difficult features. Among these the most significant is that it is very often not known who owns the mining rights and who is therefore strictly responsible. Moreover in many cases the actual workings which are the cause of the difficulty date from long ago and there are questions as to how far there is still a reasonable line of accountability. A further but not irrelevant consideration is that the cost of the remedial and preventive works required to end the discharges can be very considerable indeed.
These considerations combine in our view to make it inappropriate to remove the exemption proposed. But because we are not amending the legislation I would not wish your Lordships to conclude that we are unconcerned about the problem or that we are giving no consideration as to how it should be tackled. That is certainly not the case.
However solutions must in our view be sought elsewhere. We shall, we believe, need to look to policy instruments of a different kind. One possibility, which noble Lords may know has been widely canvassed, is a new policy instrument analogous to derelict land reclamation grants in respect of long abandoned mines. We shall examine and consult upon options of this kind in conjunction with the NRA. In respect of mines which may in future become redundant, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in particular, does I know have a concern to ensure that there are appropriate provisions for after-care, and we shall be considering whether more can be done than at present.
It will be clear from what I have said that we believe that new, long-term approaches will be required to solve this problem. Nothing in this Bill will preclude them. Given the nature of the solutions which may have to be sought, it will be evident that we believe that other legislation in due course may provide a better vehicle in the event that any new powers are required. The assurance I am giving your Lordships is that this is a problem we are considering carefully, in various contexts, and one that we shall be pursuing.
I hope that this is of some assistance to the noble Lords proposing the amendment. I hope they will also feel that, for the reason I have given related to the nature of the offence and liability for it, this amendment is not the appropriate means of tackling the problem and that, in the light of my assurances, the noble Lord will not feel the need to press it.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, first, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I could not remember who moved the amendment at Committee stage although I realise that I heard the debate. I am grateful again for his support this afternoon; it was he who raised the matter in the first place.
1306
I believe that most noble Lords who have spoken agree that we must try to bring the matter to finality some time in the future. Therefore the Minister's response was at least helpful. I accept—and I said so in my speech—that perhaps to remove the exemption in its entirety straightaway was possibly too drastic and too expensive. As the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, pointed out, it would be very costly indeed.
Nevertheless, with privatisation of the coal industry possibly on the cards and further possible closures, I regret to say, of the mines (and goodness knows, there have been enough closures in recent years), it will be a continuing problem. Obviously I shall not press the amendment to a vote at the moment; I take on board what the Minister said. The Government will have to take action in this regard, if not in this Bill in other Bills to see what can be done to improve the situation. This matter will be a continuing cause of pollution. That is what everyone in this House is desperately trying to avoid. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 [Deposits and vegetation in rivers etc.]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 117, line 49, at end insert—
("(4A) Nothing in subsections (1) and (2) above applies to anything done that constitutes good farming or good fishery management practice.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 108 makes it an offence to clear silt above sluices in rivers so that the resulting mud, as I called it in Committee, drifts downstream. The clause also makes it an offence to cut vegetation within the river and on the banks without using one's best endeavours to recover that vegetation.
There are two exceptions to this provision; one is navigation or flood prevention and the other is drainage. My amendment seeks to add to those two exceptions two more—good fishery management and good farming. I seek to add those further two exceptions for very definite reasons. I feel that the clause, as it stands, is both impracticable and unreasonable. It also produces a conflict in law. I believe that to be the case, but I stand to be corrected.
The clause covers many of the rivers in England. We are dealing with the alkaline streams, which have a large growth of various water weeds. At times those water weeds have to be cleared to enable the streams to be fished. One of the reasons that we want these rivers to be in good order is so that they can be fished for people's enjoyment. Weed has to be cut at certain times of the year. At the present time water authorities have put up booms to try to remove weed. This is totally unsatisfactory. I ask noble Lords to imagine themselves standing in a smallish stream in waders cutting the rununculus reed. That reed would float away as one cut it. It is impossible to use one's best endeavours to prevent it floating away. One simply has to let it float on downstream. The same must apply to the person

1307
who has a garden beside a river and who has some rank growth at the edge of the river. That person may cut it with a hover mower or other machine, and the rank growth will fall into the river. It is ridiculous to assume that it is possible to endeavour to recover that vegetation.
As regards growth of vegetation, there is a great impracticality here. There is a peripheral reason not to drag out all weed and put it on the bank. This point was brought up on an earlier occasion in a completely different context. It concerns the adhesion of coarse fish eggs to weed. Eggs of coarse fish such as roach and other species hatch extremely quickly. If the weed is cut and it is allowed to float down the river, the eggs will in all probability hatch on the way downstream. Someone downstream will benefit from that hatching. I must emphasise that if the weed is deposited on the bank, nothing much will happen.
So much for fishery management. More important still perhaps is the matter of farm management. As I said in Committee, there are water meadows in Wiltshire and Hampshire. I could add that they also exist in Dorset. I think I mentioned that about 12 farms had such meadows. However, I think I am right in saying there are more than 12. The whole system of running water meadows depends on clearing silt from in front of sluices. One cannot get away from that. In Committee my noble friend on the Front Bench said that the small ditches that are situated in the water meadows themselves would not come under the term "controlled waters". However, that is not the point; that is not where the sluices are situated. The sluices are situated in the big carriers which sometimes, but not always, double as drains. However, that depends on how they are set up. This clause, as it is written, will make farming impossible for a small number of people unless they go to the NRA and ask for permission to continue managing their farms as before. I do not think that that is the right way to go about things, however small a number of people may be affected. However, there is nothing more to this matter than that point. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, once again I wish to support my noble friend Lord Radnor. I do so partly as a result of an incident that occurred in my county. In that county there was a very severe flood in 1948. One of the main reasons that the flood was far more severe than any we have had either before or since was due to the fact that during the war years none of the streams was cleaned out and no trees that had fallen down across the streams had been pulled out. When three inches of rain fell in as many days we literally had a huge flood. That flood started to wash away bridges and everything else. Good management of streams is important. Sometimes one has to clean out the beds of streams and occasionally cut off tree branches that are hanging over streams. I only hope that Clause 108 is not too restrictive and that we shall not run the risk of flooding as a result.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Radnor explained very fully to your Lordships in Committee, this can be a matter of concern, in particular to those involved in agriculture in certain of the chalkland areas of Southern England. My noble friend has again outlined his worries and concerns this afternoon. While we cannot accept the amendment, I hope that what I am able to say can offer noble Lords some reassurance.
First, as I said in Committee, it should be clear that the water meadows where the concerns are focused may be covered by water only a very few days each year, and do not fall within the term "inland waters"; therefore, nothing done within these meadows will be caught by Clause 108.
The ditches which serve the meadows are, however, inland waters, and it is the Government's view that they should be subject to the offence provision, for the disturbing of mud in such ditches may harm fisheries in rivers when the ditch water flows into the rivers. However, the consent of the NRA can be sought for these operations and, depending on the circumstances of the case, we are confident the authority will not want to interfere with acceptable practices carried out with due care. I am sure that the NRA will, in exercising its powers, take full account of good agricultural practice. But I do not believe we should limit the effect of the clause by importing this concept onto the face of the Bill. It is, we believe, a matter best left to the moderation and good sense of the authority.
As for my noble friend's proposal that the offence should not apply to anything done in the good management of fisheries, we see some difficulty. Partly this is because good fisheries management practice is nowhere defined. But more than that, as I said in Committee, the fact is that the main purpose of Clause 106 is the proper protection of fisheries. One would hope, therefore, that nothing done by anyone involved in the management of fisheries would cause damage to other fisheries further downstream. But that possibility remains, and we should not leave it dependent on varying views of good fisheries practice.
We believe, therefore, that it would not be appropriate to exclude things done in the management of fisheries from the scope of the offence. I emphasise again that the NRA's consent can be obtained in relevant circumstances. And given its responsibilities for fisheries, clearly if it regards action as good practice, it is most unlikely to prosecute. I believe that should give my noble friend due reassurance. It is in the light of these hopeful assurances that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I admit to being considerably disappointed. Perhaps my own speech was a disappointment. I had, in effect, to repeat what I said in Committee. And my noble friend on the Front Bench has repeated exactly what he said. The circumstances have not altered at all.
It is not right to say that the meadows are flooded for only a few days a year. They are flooded for most of the winter in order to keep the frost out. It is a

1309
serious matter for fisheries. It does not hurt fisheries downstream to let weed float through. But it irritates fishermen. That is a very different thing. It does harm fisheries upstream to allow rivers to become choked with weed. There are plenty of rivers which one can allow to be choked with weed without spoiling drainage.
The rivers to which I refer are the chalk streams of England. I live among them in Wiltshire. I read in another context that the most northerly is the River Hull. I am therefore talking about large areas.
I shall certainly go away once more and consider whether there is any way round the problem. However, I still feel immensely strongly that the situation is wrong. I should perhaps have declared my interest long ago, both in fisheries and as someone who knows something about water meadows. In Committee I cited the case of a farmer whose whole livelihood depends on irrigated water meadows. Am I to believe that that farmer has to go cap in hand to the NRA to ask permission to continue his livelihood?
I shall go away and think about the matter again. I hope that my noble friend will also consider whether he can do something to alleviate what I agree is a parochial problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Procedure for certain Orders]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 214, line 34, leave out from ("authority") to ("and") in line 37 and insert ("and water undertaker whose area includes the whole or any part of that locality").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Schedule 7 sets out procedures which are to apply to the making of orders for protection zones. Protection zones may be established for a wide range of purposes associated with the prevention and control of controlled waters. Often it will be in relation simply to the quality of water in the environment but in some cases it may be more directly related to water to be abstracted for supply. In any event, it will be clear that the water undertakers will have a major interest in proposals to establish zones. Indeed, in some cases they may want initially to make proposals to the NRA for such zones. Given such interest it is clear that they should be involved formally in the process of establishing zones.
In Committee it was suggested that the companies should be statutory consultees. While I have no doubt that relevant consultations—including consultations with the companies—will be undertaken by the NRA itself before it puts forward a proposal, we have concluded that the better way to ensure the appropriate involvement of the undertakers in the process is to have copies of the draft notice served on the water undertakers as well as on local authorities when the NRA submits a proposal to the Secretary of State. The undertakers will then be able to submit their views to the Secretary of State in time for these to be taken fully into account in his determination of the final terms and conditions of a consent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 111 [Nitrate sensitive areas]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 120, line 42, at end insert—
("(4A) Where an order contains provision for the imposition of requirements, prohibitions or reservations on the carrying on in relation to any agricultural land in the area to which the order applies of such activities as may be specified or described in the order, the order shall provide for compensation to be paid by the Minister or the Secretary of State to any person who has any interest in that land for any loss or damage sustained which is attributable to the making and implementation of the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first in a series of amendments in my name and/or the name of my noble friend Lady Trumpington which relates to nitrate sensitive areas. All of the amendments were discussed very fully at Committee stage and resulted in my noble friend offering to meet National Farmers Union advisers. I should like to thank my noble friend and her officials for their help in arriving at an answer to all the points that were raised.
Rather than delay the House and repeat my concerns as expressed in Committee, with the permission of the House I shall merely move the amendments as they are called so that my noble friend on the Front Bench can give her considered reply. Amendment No. 130A deals with compensation arrangements for nitrate sensitive areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for his extremely kind words. I shall make sure that they reach the right quarters.
Amendment No. 130A would affect the compensation arrangements for a nitrate sensitive areas scheme involving compulsory agricultural measures. It would require the Government to pay compensation automatically for any loss or damage sustained as a result of compulsory measures.
I explained in Committee that the Government could not support this type of amendment because it went too far. It would not be right in every single case automatically to compensate for any loss arising from restrictions introduced to reduce nitrate leaching, for example, in the case of a requirement to comply with good agricultural practice. That continues to be the Government's position.
In raising this issue again, I think that my noble friend is seeking further reassurance on the Government's commitment to the payment of compensation in addition to the assurances which I gave in Committee. It may therefore help my noble friend in his deliberations if I say that, if at some future date we need to introduce compulsory agricultural measures involving substantial restrictions going beyond what could be regarded as good agricultural practice, we shall, prior to their introduction, publish a general statement outlining the main principles of compensation for such restrictions. Furthermore, farming organisations

1311
would be consulted during the preparation of any such statement.
I hope that in the light of this assurance and those I have already given in Committee my noble friend will accept that if the Government have to introduce compulsory measures they will act with sincerity and fairness and that, with regard to compensation, they will fully take into account the potentially serious impact that such measures could have on individual farm businesses.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. Of course I should have liked compulsory compensation for everybody at all times, but that was not a serious option. We do not know what will happen in the future and I am grateful for my noble friend's assurance. I hope that she realises that we recognise the problem which would result if we were to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 130B:
Page 121, line 46, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment deals with charges. I spoke to it in Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Clause 111(8)(e) of the Water Bill, as amended in Committee, would enable charges to be imposed in relation to applications for, or the granting of, consents for carrying on activities otherwise not allowed. My noble friend's amendment would delete that provision and therefore not allow such charges to be imposed.
I explained to the Committee why the Government could not accept this amendment. Those reasons remain. My noble friend was anxious, however, for an assurance that any charges would be modest and reasonable in relation to individual farmers. He stated, for example, that it would be totally unfair to expect farmers to foot the Bill for expensive scientific investigation work to prove that there was a need for an NSA.
On reflection I can give the assurance that my noble friend is requesting. If it was decided to impose charges for consents, these would be reasonable and designed to contribute to the cost of administering the concession. The moneys would certainly not be used for other unrelated purposes, including the one cited by my noble friend during the Committee debate.
I hope that in the light of this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this proposed amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, roughly the same comments apply to this amendment as applied to the last one. I should have liked more, but I fully understand my noble friend's problem. We have
1312
discussed it at length over tea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Schedule 11 [Orders designating Nitrate Sensitive Areas]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I should tell noble Lords that, if Amendment No. 130BA were to be agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 130C because it would have been pre-empted.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 130BA:
Page 231, line 47, leave out from first ("on") to ("and") in line 48 and insert—
("(i) the Authority;
(ii) every local authority and water undertaker whose area includes the whole or any part of that locality; and
(iii) in the case of an order containing any such provision as is authorised by section 111(4)(b) of this Act, such owners and occupiers of agricultural land in that locality as appear to the relevant Minister to be likely to be affected by the obligations in respect of which payments are to be made under that provision;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with notification to farmers in nitrate sensitive areas. I spoke about the matter at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that it would be appropriate if I spoke to Amendment No. 130C just as a safeguard. I tabled an amendment to Schedule 7 in Committee. The Minister agreed to bring back an amendment and has done so. I am grateful for Amendment No. 130, which has now been accepted, but I can see no reason why this same amendment should not apply to Schedule 11. It has already been said that, if the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is accepted, it will pre-empt my amendment. I shall therefore wait in anticipation of his amendment being accepted.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is a helpful amendment which goes a long way to meeting the concerns that I expressed in Committee about the noble Lord's original amendment. It now distinguishes between schemes which simply compel a farmer to follow good agricultural practice, and those in which compensation will be paid in recognition of the fact that the measures are substantial and go beyond good agricultural practice and which could therefore seriously affect the livelihoods and activities of the farmers involved. The amendment ensures that all farmers in the latter category will be made individually aware of the proposals and the scope for commenting on them. The Government can accept that approach, which follows the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act where it deals with areas of special scientific interest.
I know that my noble friend had originally hoped that we would notify owners and occupiers of all

1313
land affected by proposals for compulsory measures, whether or not compensation was paid. I am most grateful that he has now recognised our practical difficulty in so doing and altered his amendment accordingly. Perhaps it would ease his mind in that respect if I assured him that, as an administrative rule, we will copy to all principal farming organisations the published notices concerning all designating orders containing compulsory measures. The inclusion of notice to water undertakers is consistent with an amendment to Schedule 7 on water protection zones and recognises their special interest in the scheme. I am pleased to commend Amendment No. 130BA to noble Lords.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her remarks. I trust that she understands that Amendment No. 130C is rendered unnecessary because of what I have just said. I therefore commend to the House Amendment No. 130BA, thereby enabling Amendment No. 130C to be withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I am grateful for her acceptance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 130C:
Page 231, line 47, after ("authority") insert ("and water undertaker").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 130C not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 232, line 13, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-two").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 132.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 would extend from 28 to 42 days the period during which a proposed order and any relevant map or plan might be inspected following the date of first publication of the relevant notice. They would also extend from 28 to 42 days the period during which an interested person might object to the making of an order.
These amendments are identical to ones suggested by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley at Committee stage which I agreed at the time to consider. I have now done so. I accept my noble friend's argument that the potential seriousness and complexity of the measures that might be introduced under Clause 111 justifies a slightly longer period for consideration and a period, moreover, for which there is precedent in the 1980 Highways Act. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the point and commend these amendments to the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringay: My Lords, I am sorry to strike a sour note in this atmosphere of mutual
1314
congratulation; but I am bound to say that the farmers are achieving a degree of consideration that is not commonly given to other groups in the community. The nitrate sensitive area proposals were a very minimal proposal even when they started out. They do not go anywhere near dealing with the much more fundamental problem of the pollution caused by farmers—no doubt egged on by the Ministry of Agriculture—over many years. It should be dealt with in a far more radical way. Farmers should pay for it or contribute much more than they do. I am sorry to see the Government yielding to pressure from the farmers in that respect. I hope that the lessons learnt from that tenderness of heart will be applied to other more deserving groups in the community.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is a most extraordinary amendment on which the noble Lord chooses to give a party political broadcast. To move from 28 to 42 days' notice is a sensible thing to to. How often has the noble Lord——
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords——
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall not give way for a moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a question of order. The Minister has the right of reply, but her noble friend Lord Stanley has only one opportunity. He sought to reply and did not have an opportunity to do so.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, if it is in order, I shall let my noble friend on the Front Bench reply and then reply myself.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not have to come back. I just wish to finish by saying that I wonder whether the noble Lord has ever come back from holiday and found a final demand for a gas bill. It is very irritating. That was one of the reasons why I accepted the extension. It has nothing to with the NFU.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that I have a right of reply.
First, I should like to thank my noble friend for her reply. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that, although my noble friend has given us some concessions, they are extremely minor. When I return to my flock, as they say, I shall be told that I had not done at all well.
Perhaps I should also say to the noble Lord that I think he expects me permanently to annoy my noble friends on the Front Bench. Just for a change, happiness and light shine. For how long, I do not know; but, while they do, I do not see why we should not enjoy it and bask in the atmosphere of peacefulness. I do not know how long it will last. I hope that it lasts for a full two weeks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 232, line 26, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-two").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 132A:
Page 233, line 5, leave out ("if he or they consider it appropriate to do so") and insert ("and shall where any objections in writing have been received to the making of an order containing mandatory provisions from an owner, lessee or occupier (except tenants for a month of any period less than a month) of any land comprised in the order and which have not been withdrawn").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment at Committee stage. It deals with inquiries. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in the case of one or more objections to a proposed order designating a nitrate sensitive area, Schedule 11, paragraph 6, would enable the Secretary of State and the Minister to hold a public inquiry before deciding whether or not to make the proposed order, although it would not compel them to do so. My noble friend's amendment would, however, automatically require such a public inquiry.
The Government could not accept the amendment, for the reasons explained to the Committee. However, I gave an assurance that every case will be cnsidered on its merits although our normal policy will be to hold public inquiries whenever a proposal raises new issues of policy not previously examined in public.
I pause for a moment and wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is interested in what I am saying. I understand that he is. To continue, in reply my noble friend asked whether there might also be a role for some other form of inquiry and I think that he had in mind a possible inquiry at a later stage. I have now looked further into the question of possible second stage inquiries.
Clause 111(8) would empower the Minister and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, to make regulations covering arbitration procedures in the event of a contested refusal of an application for consent, for example, by a farmer to carry on an activity not otherwise allowed. I can now say that it would be our intention, prior to the introduction of compulsory measures, to make mandatory provision for the appropriate arbitration procedure in the event of a contested refusal of consent. In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be delighted to hear that I have not got what I wanted. I have had an assurance, for which I am grateful, but I do not have it on the face of the Bill as I should have liked. While I am not unreasonably happy—if that is the word to use—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, must now be happier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 [Consents to certain Discharges]:
[Amendments Nos. 132AA and 132AB not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 132B is wrongly marshalled on the List and we shall come to it later.
Clause 115 [Codes of good agricultural practice]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley: moved Amendment No. 132C:
Page 124, line 22, at end insert—
("(4) For the purposes of section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (determination of planning applications) the desirability in appropriate cases of relocating agricultural buildings and associated works in accordance with good agricultural practice, or in order to comply with any requirements made under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, shall be a material consideration.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must say that this amendment does not deal with nitrate sensitive areas. For a moment or two we move into a slightly different field. This amendment was inspired by the reply given to me at Committee stage by my noble friend to the effect that it was the Government's intention and desire that encouragement should be given to farmers by way of advice to avoid pollution of all kinds and in particular water pollution.
Historically the best farms—which are often dairy farms—have been sited near or even around a stream or well and often in the middle of a village. Such sites are often far from satisfactory in that it is extremely difficult not to pollute water if one is so close to it. Indeed, because of the change in the lifestyle of the inhabitants of our villages—most of them no longer work on the land—farms are disliked for their noise, smell, traffic generation and pollution. The farmer might prefer to move his farm to a safer site—and by that I mean safer from a pollution point of view. I should declare an interest in that the farm which I previously tenanted from New College is considering that course of action. But preliminary soundings from the local authority have not been helpful although my son who farms there now is continually harried for making a noise and for traffic generation.
The purpose of this amendment is therefore to ask the Government whether they will make clear in the planning laws and directives that those problems of pollution are recognised and are a factor—I am not asking for planning permission itself—that should be taken into account when granting planning permission for new buildings or works. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, under this amendment if a local planning authority had before it a planning application to erect new farm buildings in the place of existing farm buildings at a different location, then that planning authority would be required, when deciding whether to grant permission, to take account of the fact—if it were a fact—that the new buildings might reduce pollution and promote good agricultural practice.
This is an amendment to the planning control system. Specifically it is an amendment to Section

1317
29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. It therefore does not belong in this Bill. Nevertheless, I fully appreciate the reason behind the amendment. I accept that in some cases the best way of dealing with a pollution or environmental problem will be to discontinue the activities at the site where they cause the problem and to relocate them in modern, purpose-built premises designed to avoid any recurrence of the problem. In circumstances where planning permission for the new premises is necessary, the concern of the local planning authority will naturally focus on the details of the new development proposal. However, if the new proposal is also likely to bring about environmental or other benefits elsewhere, this may sometimes be an additional factor in favour of the new proposal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for raising this point and we shall consider whether it would be appropriate to include some reference to it in the planning guidance issued by my department.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I like what my noble friend has said. I hope that I shall not have my throat cut by the Opposition. It is exactly what I wanted the Minister to say. I do not want this requirement in the Bill and I fully understand why it should not be there. However, I am delighted that the Government recognise the problem that I have brought up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 116 [Registers for the purpose of Chapter I]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 132CA:
Page 125, line 7, at end insert—
("(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, when making regulations under this section, to prescribe that the registers maintained by the Authority under this section shall—

(a) include computerised records of all the items mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) in subsection (1) above; and

(b) provide facilities for any such records to be ordered and mapped geographically according to National Grid References, hydrometric sub-catchments.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the registers described in Clause 116. The clause lays down what should be contained in the registers and that they should be available to the public for inspection. The purpose of this very simple amendment is to lay down also the manner in which this information should be contained in the registers; namely, with a common basis and common references, so as to facilitate perusal by the public. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would require first that all the details included by the NRA on its public register of discharge consents should be held in computerised form; and secondly, that they should be order mapped to national grid reference hydrometric sub-catchments.
1318
As to the first point, we do not think it right to go quite as far as the noble Lord proposes. As a matter of fact most sample data is held on computerised record and, given its volume, it is difficult to see how any other system could be satisfactory. But in some cases the actual consents and other legal documents have been held in hard copy and we do not think that we should rule out that approach. Either way, the NRA will have to undertake a review of the arrangements inherited from the 10 water authorities, and we do not think that we should pre-empt its conclusions on the most efficient and effective approach to a practical question such as this one.
As to the second half of the amendment, we already go a good way to meet this, in that our draft register regulations, on which we are consulting, require inclusion of six-figure national grid references. As for reference to hydrometric sub-catchments, that is something that we shall undertake to consider in finalising the draft regulations and our conclusions can be pursued further when the regulations come before the House. In any case, we consider that it would be too rigid and inflexible for the primary legislation to impose requirements in this matter, and that subordinate legislation is the place for it to be.
In the light of those commitments, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that considered reply, which I found most helpful. The purpose of the amendment was to facilitate perusal by the public. I hope that whatever system is finally devised it will have in mind that objective. In the light of the Minister's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132CB not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 132D:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Licences to abstract water
.—(1) Where—

(a) a licence to abstract water is held under the Water Resources Act 1963; and

(b) a licence of right to abstract water is held under that Act, the Authority shall from time to time review all such licences.

(2) If the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the Regional Rivers Advisory Committee or the Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee is of the opinion that it is appropriate to do so, they may request the Authority to review any particular licence and for the Authority to vary the conditions or revoke or otherwise suspend such licences in order to ensure the flow, level or volume of any inland water or any water contained in underground strata for the purposes of protecting fisheries, flora, fauna or natural beauty.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to place a statutory requirement on the National Rivers Authority that it shall from time to time review all water abstraction licences. It also provides for a trigger mechanism which will allow a number of statutory advisory bodies to request the review of any particular licence.
This amendment is essentially the same as the one I moved at Committee stage which received support from all sides of the House. However, I accept the

1319
point made by my noble friend Lord Arran in reply to my earlier amendment that we do not wish to see the National Rivers Authority burdened with unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. My intention with my previous amendment was for the authority to review licences at regular intervals—which I still hope that it will do—but this new amendment provides for greater flexibility.
To give the NRA sufficient scope to manage its own affairs, I have adopted the form of wording that is used in Schedule 12 when the NRA considers the review of consents to discharge into controlled waters. This schedule states:
"It shall be the duty of the authority to review from time to time the consents".
This will leave the management of the review to the NRA and allay the Government's fear of adopting a rigid timescale.
During the debate at Committee stage we heard evidence from all sides of the problems caused for fisheries and wildlife as a direct result of over-abstraction of water. We heard how rivers such as the Wye and the Kennet have been affected and how chalk streams around the Thames Basin had dried up or been reduced to a trickle. Nature reserves owned by conservation bodies have been affected. I mentioned Fowlmere, Dungeness and Strumpshaw Fen owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The noble Baroness, Lady David, told us of Redgrave and Lopham Fen owned by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. The Government's adviser on nature conservation, the Nature Conservancy Council, has highlighted problems on the River Hull in Humberside, the River Hiz in Bedfordshire, Ashwell Springs in Hertfordshire and East Ruston Common in Norfolk. These all illustrate that, although the Water Resources Act 1963 makes it possible to amend abstraction licences, the will to do so, for whatever reason, has been lacking. The first part of my amendment will rectify this by making the review of abstraction licences obligatory.
The second part of my amendment, as before, is to permit a number of other statutory bodies to request that the NRA carries out a review of any particular licence. This amendment will enable advisory bodies with a direct interest in fisheries, conservation and amenity to have direct access to the authority rather than through the Minister, which is the current procedure in Section 43(2) of the Water Resources Act 1963. Passing the responsibility to the NRA will help to speed up the administrative process.
With leave of the House, I shall outline how this trigger mechanism would work. As a typical example I take the River Pang in Berkshire which flows into the Thames at Pangbourne and which serves as a supply of drinking water for Didcot and for cooling water for Didcot Power Station. The total length of this river is nine miles. Prior to 1965 it was a flourishing river with its source rising in the chalk hills of the Berkshire Downs and with its upper reaches flowing through the four parishes of Compton, Hampstead Norreys, Yattendon and Frilsham. It contained a rich diversity of aquatic vegetation and provided nesting tunnels for the
1320
kingfisher, which is totally dependent on the river and its surroundings. The Government have international obligations for its protection and habitat.
Continued abstraction from a series of boreholes at Compton has reduced a four-mile stretch of the Pang—nearly half its total length—to nothing more than a trickle running along the bottom of a ditch. The reduction in flow has led to the loss of a trout fishery in the upper reaches and has seriously affected the viability of local watercress producers in Stanford Dingley. Where there was once herb rich wet meadows at Frilsham, supporting breeding waders including snipe, there is now just a wheat field.
The licence allows up to 20 million gallons of water to be abstracted every day from the River Pang by the CEGB and Thames Water Authority causing the "perennial head"—the uppermost point of a river that has a guaranteed minimum flow—to have shifted four miles downstream. The local parish councils and residents are deeply concerned over the disappearance of their local river and have tried unsuccessfully to obtain a review of the abstraction licences.
My amendment, if accepted, would enable the parishes to approach the NRA's advisory committees, or the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission. If one of these bodies having looked at the problem, considers that abstraction is significantly affecting the river's ability to support fish or wildlife or is damaging the livelihood of local population, it shall request the NRA to review the licence. In this way the NRA can establish its priorities of work and concentrate on reviewing those abstraction licences where the need to do so is greatest. The amendment will also help to clarify the situation for the water industry.
I now wish to speak to Amendment No. 132K. The purpose of this amendment is to permit the NRA to vary or revoke any water abstraction licence, including licences of right. I have already outlined the problems that have been caused for fisheries and wildlife by excessive abstraction of water. The Water Resources Act 1963 established a system of licensing for water abstractions. Those bodies that were abstracting water immediately prior to 1963 could apply for a licence which would be called a licence of right in order to distinguish it from licences granted in respect of new abstractions after 1963. Indeed, Section 33(7) of the 1963 Act quite clearly states that,
"any licence granted in pursuance of an application under this section, or in pursuance of an appeal consequential upon such an application, is referred to in this Act as a 'licence of right'."
That means that whenever a section in the 1963 Act relates to licences of right it should specifically use the phrase "licence of right". Section 43, which provides for a review and revocation of licences, states:
"where it appears to a river authority that a licence under this Act granted by the authority should be revoked or varied, the authority may formulate proposals for revoking or varying the licence".
It makes no reference to the phrase "licence of right". By implication, it applies only to licences granted

1321
in the normal way. The NRA therefore appears powerless to review abstractions that have been in place prior to 1963.
The amendment proposed would rectify the position and make it quite clear that the NRA would be able to take action and there would be no doubt that abstraction granted under licences of right were indeed included. This would help to prevent and reverse damage to fisheries and nature reserves in many parts of England and Wales and would be welcomed by anglers and conservationists alike. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Norrie on both these amendments but especially on Amendment No. 132K to which I have added my name because it has been pointed out to me on behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that it is an amendment which is essential to the 1963 Act in order to bring it up to date in the light of the Bill.
There is no need for me to repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Norrie has so clearly presented. However, I would add just this. So often we have had pointed out from the Government Front Bench and from all sides of the House the advantages of flexibility, instead of having things too closely tied up by the Bill. Amendment No. 132D in the name of my noble friend has the advantage that there would be some flexibility in circumstances in which we should surely try to achieve it. After all, a licence to abstract water should not go on for ever. In the light of changing circumstances it should be capable of being reviewed from time to time. In my opinion that is the main reason to commend the first amendment of my noble friend.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. It is essentially very sensible and can have a profound effect upon the environment, particularly those areas of special scientific interest and enjoyment not only to the rural but to the urban population. There is no doubt that demand for water is increasing. Much of that demand falls upon the aquifers in the eastern counties. Inevitably those are increasingly depleted with the effect that has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. It surely is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, that there should be flexibility in this matter. When a licence is granted it should not be irrevocable and permanent, but should be reviewed at any time in the light of changing circumstances.
The proposals put forward in the amendment are wise and sensible, putting the right to request a review in the hands of highly respected organisations and leaving the final decision with the appropriate authority. It seems to me to be a wise and sensible amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name has been added to this amendment and I should also like to add my support to the case made so well by noble
1322
Lords who have already spoken. I do not need to say very much more. Too much abstraction of water causes problems for the wildlife, the flora and the fauna. It also can damage archaeological remains and sites by drying them out and we know that there is anxiety in that regard as well.
The flexibility and the possibility for change is very important. If new planning permission is given and more houses built there can be a great demand on the water causing lowering of levels and the flow may not be kept up in the rivers if too much is taken out. There is flexibility in the amendments. I believe they are better than those to which we had our names at Committee stage, so I hope the Government will feel that they can support them. My noble friend Lord McIntosh on the Front Bench also supports them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend that in the modifications he has made to Amendment No. 132D as compared with the amendment he moved at Committee stage, he has recognised the two difficulties which his earlier amendment would have created. The requirement for five-yearly licence reviews has been replaced with a duty to review them "from time to time", and the role of the Nature Conservancy Council and the other three bodies mentioned has I think been made rather less burdensome, in that they are now to be allowed only to request the NRA to review a licence.
My noble friend Lord Norrie made a totally convincing case. I should be the first to be keen to accept his amendment, but for one thing, that is, that he bases his argument, if I may put it that way, on a complete misunderstanding of the Bill. I can give my noble friend the categoric assurance that the powers he seeks are already in the Bill.
Lord Renton: Where, my Lords?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend Lord Renton, from a sedentary position, asks where. He might refer to Schedule 26 paragraph (29)(i) which covers the point that he was worried about. Briefly, the Bill provides that all abstraction licences granted by the NRA's predecessor bodies under the Water Resources Act 1963 are to be deemed granted by the NRA. So that takes care of that point. As the 1963 Act provides that even licences of right are licences granted—that was my noble friend's other concern—Section 43 of that Act has the clear effect of allowing them to be amended or revoked either, as now, by the water authorities or, in the future, by the NRA. Those who have advised my noble friend that licences of right cannot be amended or revoked (except at the request of the holder) are simply in error. I think this explanation deals also with Amendment No. 132K, since it too implies that licences of right will not already be able to be revoked or amended by the NRA.
That is not to say that there are no practical problems associated with the exercise of this power, but there is certainly no gap in the: legal powers which the Bill provides. Nor, of course, is it necessary to provide specifically that the NCC and other such bodies may request the NRA to exercise this power.

1323
They and indeed anyone are free at any time to make out a case and ask the NRA to act appropriately. No doubt they will, indeed, do so. But there is no need at all to spell that out on the face of a Bill.
Finally, I appreciate that a duty to review licences from time to time is not a particularly onerous one as it is clearly open to interpretation as to how frequent a review it implies, but I am nonetheless unwilling to accept such a duty being imposed on the NRA. This is simply because there is no obvious need for all licences to be reviewed even from time to time.
Low flow problems are fairly localised. My noble friend made that clear. For the bulk of licences there will most likely be no need, for the foreseeable future, to review them at all.
In conclusion, I am totally with my noble friend, but I fear that his arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the Bill because the Bill already contains the necessary powers that he feels are necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, responds, he has claimed in his reply to the amendments that there is already a power to review licences. However, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, refers only to the power to review licences as a means to an end, the end being to stop the damage to rivers by over-abstraction. What is required from the noble Earl—if he is effectively to deal with the concerns which have been expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House—is that he should indicate how there shall be a duty on the National Rivers Authority, or whatever authority is concerned, to secure that over-abstraction is put an end to and that our rivers are protected and returned to the state in which they ought to be.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe I can meet the noble Lord's concern. In the Bill there is the duty on the NRA to review the licences in order to maintain a flow in the rivers. The NRA can review any of the licences to enable it to carry out the duties laid upon it.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's lengthy reply. I have listened carefully to it. There is no doubt that both in Committee and at this stage great concern has been and is still being expressed on all sides of the Chamber. I have been able to speak with personal knowledge of the plight of the River Pang, which is representative of many other affected rivers.
Over abstraction has united all countryside users including conservationists, farmers, anglers and recreation organisations. When these bodies are in agreement on an issue, we should take notice. However, I shall read Hansard with great care to see what the Minister has said. In relation to my second Amendment No. 132K on licences of right, it still appears that there is more than one way of interpreting the Water Resources Act 1963. To clarify the matter, is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that he will inform the NRA that it has the legal powers to vary or revoke licences of right?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not think I need to give my noble friend that assurance because it is already in the Bill. However, let me look at that point because I should like to be clear on it too.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [Amendments of the Water Resources Act 1963]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 132E:
Page 242, line 12, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("thirty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 132F to 132J. I moved a similar amendment at Committee stage in cols. 296–297. I fully appreciate the problems that my noble friend Lord Caithness stated in Committee at that time. I suppose that I over-iced the cake by asking for double the amount of water at that stage, but at least I am now repenting of my sin and asking for only 30 cubic metres.
I hope that my noble friend will not accuse me of entering into a Dutch auction. I hope he will agree that my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton had a cast-iron case in saying that 20 cubic metres only just suffices for a herd of 120 cows. Bearing in mind that the farm has other demands for water, I believe that 30 cubic metres is the correct amount.
As I said in Committee in reply to my noble friend, we are talking about a non-mains supply and it may not be possible to do as he said and obtain the balance of water from the mains. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to be clear about the meaning of the amendment. I understand that the noble Lord wishes to abstract more water; in other words, he is going against the entire tenor of the previous debate.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is absolutely right. For that reason I am disappointed that neither my noble friend Lord Renton nor my noble friend Lord Norrie who sadly is no longer present in the Chamber, was prepared to enter into the debate. This is another example of the necessity to strike a balance. It is not merely an arbitrary balance because, as my noble friend will be aware, the issue was considered carefully in a consultation exercise. There have been no significant new developments which may lead us to change our minds.
Of course my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton put forward some useful points in Committee, as have noble Lords who spoke on the last amendment. It remains a relevant point that to increase the threshold to 30 cubic metres per day would correspondingly increase the risk from the cumulative effect of a number of small abstractions and thereby of inadvertent derogation from protected rights. It would adversely affect

1325
environmental and other third party interests. I suggest that the threshold of 20 cubic metres per day represents a reasonable balance.
Far be it from me to say that my noble friend was horse trading or entering into a Dutch auction. I believe that he is being most serious about the matter and I hope that he realises that I have also been serious.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he help the House by explaining what is meant by 20 and 30 cubic metres in terms with which noble Lords are more familiar; that is, in gallons?
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I can give the House the answer. Twenty cubic metres of water is 4,400 gallons; 30 cubic metres is 6,600 gallons.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl's lips never moved—that is brilliant!
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I should like to ask a question. He is taking away something which I believe to be an old prescriptive right of the farmer. It is that agricultural livestock should be permitted to drink any water indigenous to the farm. That is being whittled down to the proposed maximum. I am not happy about the way in which the quantities have been set. I should like to know from what source he received the agricultural advice that the amount was adequate and for how large a farm?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that we can stick to the rules of the House at Report stage. On this occasion I shall make an exception for my noble friend. As he knows, there was a consultation exercise during which all these matters were fully discussed. I understand my noble friend's concern and I know that he will take on board the concerns of those who see the matter from a different point of view.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is glad to see that the sun has gone in and I am back to throwing bricks from behind my noble friend on to his head.
A serious point has been missed. A small amount of water is involved and I am proposing that we should not increase bureaucracy by asking for such a low level. If a farmer has 200 cows, for example, and needs 40 cubic metres of water he will almost certainly be granted that right. It will have to be granted to him. I am proposing that we cut down the bureaucracy so that fewer farmers will overload my noble friend Lord Crickhowell with paperwork. We are talking about small amounts of water but obviously my noble friend is no longer being hit by my bricks. He is being encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to resist anything I say. Therefore, I must withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132F to 132J not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 132B:
Page 244, line 8, at end insert—

(Section 42 of the 1963 Act

14A. In the proviso to subsection (2) of section 42 of the 1963 Act (revocation or variation on application of holder of licence) after "periods" insert "and all other minor variations (not in the aggregate exceeding 20 cubic metres in any period of 24 hours) which in the opinion of the Authority are not likely to affect other licensed abstractors".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment has not yet been moved and I am bobbing up and down trying to do so. It was misplaced because it belongs to Schedule 13, which provides amendments to the 1963 Water Resources Act. The amendment introduces a further amendment to that Act. It was tabled in Committee by my noble friend. The sympathetic response of the Minister suggested that we were being invited to bring it back to the House in a somewhat different form stipulating the kind of limit on the category of variations which would not need to be advertised. This revised amendment does that.
The limit that has been suggested is adopted from the equivalent quantity already specified in Schedule 13, paragraph 8(2) of the Bill in respect of applications for new licences. Therefore, it conforms with quantities which do not need advertising. Under Section 42(2) of the 1963 Act any variation to an existing licence, however trivial, other than for a reduction in quantity, is subject to the full advertising procedure. The experience of Anglian Water Authority shows that that leads to unnecessary bureaucracy. It is believed that advertising should be required only for significant changes at the discretion of the National Rivers Authority.
At present a farmer must advertise his wish to irrigate different fields. That causes an extra workload for the NRA units of the water authority and unnecessary expense for the licence holder. However, it does not convey any corresponding benefit. The dispensation would equate with the position under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 where the authority can dispense with advertising requirements when:
"the discharges … will have no appreciable effect on the water".
That appears in Section 36(4).
The amendment is also intended to dispense with advertising when there will be no appreciable environmental effect. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Section 42 of the Water Resources Act 1963 provides for the revocation or variation of licences to abstract water at the request of the licence holder. The purpose of this amendment would seem to be to disapply publicity requirements for applications for increases of up to 20 cubic metres applied for by licence holders and which the NRA considers are not likely to affect other licensed abstractors.
I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to Section 42(2) of the 1963 Act which applies, interalia, the provisions of Section 28 of that Act to applications for increases in licensed amounts. Section 28 is amended by paragraph 8(2) of Schedule

1327
13 to the Bill which gives the NRA the discretion to dispense with the requirements of that section relating to publication arrangements, that is, for applications for abstractions of up to 20 cubic metres a day.
I hope that my noble friend will find that what is already provided explicitly in the Bill is similar to his amendment, which is therefore unnecessary.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, if I understand that aright, it means that the paragraph from which I copied the terms of the proposed amendment was effective in the very case which I had under consideration. I should like to read what the noble Lord said but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132K not moved.]
Clause 135 [Flood defence functions of the Authority]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 132L:
Page 140, line 31, after ("Authority's") insert ("fulfilment of the general and environmental duties set out in section 8 of this Act, the fulfilment of the environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest set out in section 9 of this Act and the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to give the NRA the power to direct a regional flood defence committee where it feels that there is a conflict between the environmental and general duties of that committee.
At present the Bill requires the NRA to discharge its land drainage and flood defence functions through the regional committees in much the same way as the water authorities do at present. As drafted in Clause 135 of this Bill and in Section 1(2) of the Land Drainage Act 1976, the NRA has the power to direct regional flood defence committees where work is planned for flood defence purposes which are likely to have a material effect on the NRA's water management activities. That power is totally inadequate for the protection of landscape, wildlife, fisheries and other parts of the environment especially when it is considered in relation to the remaining wetlands and marshes of England and Wales. This amendment will give the NRA the power to direct regional flood defence committees upon environmental matters.
Over the years the regional land drainage committees have promoted many environmentally damaging schemes. They were mainly to do with drainage for agricultural purposes and thus increased food production. As we no longer require increased food production, should the RDCs suggest a scheme of land drainage in areas of high nature conservation or landscape interest, the NRA must be able to give a clear direction about the undesirability of such a scheme.
I moved a similar amendment in Committee concerning the existing powers of water authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who replied said that the agreement works satisfactorily and there is no need to change it. I must disagree with her.
1328
The RSPB has provided evidence which shows that existing arrangements are far from satisfactory. Between 1971 and 1980 around 70,000 hectares of wetland and marsh were drained. A survey conducted in 1982 indicated that the numbers of snipe breeding in lowland areas of England and Wales had decreased from 10,000 to 2,000 pairs. Snipe are a particularly good example of a species of bird affected by this form of activity as they feed on worms which live in soft mud in wetland and marsh areas. Numerous other wading birds would be similarly affected.
This amendment would allow the NRA to direct regional committees when it feels that there is a conflict among the duties of the regional defence committees, and in particular to provide a certain fallback in defence where the landscape and natural environment is concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this amendment does not appear to be necessary. I say that because of the very wide terms of Clause 135(5) as they already stand. I need not read them out because noble Lords can see them.
Also, I should have thought that it was rather undesirable to have such a long and unmanageable sentence, which we should have if this amendment were added to what is already a fairly long sentence. For those two reasons, I hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment from a slightly different point of view from that of the mover. Noble Lords will recall that part of the duties under Clause 8 of the Bill are to protect and conserve buildings. On all sides of the House we are agreed that that is the right and proper thing to do. However, there is one aspect of the duties of the National Rivers Authority and the flood protection bodies with which the Bill does not seem to me to deal adequately; that is, dealing not with the problems of over-abstraction of water from rivers but with the problem of declining abstraction of water from underground sources. As noble Lords will recall, the effect of that is to raise the water table in various parts of the country, especially in areas where de-industrialisation has led to a reduction in the water demand by declining industries.
The raising of the water table causes flooding in basements and so on and other underground parts of buildings and structures. I believe that the Bill, if not silent, is not very loud on that matter and it seems to me that that is something on which the river authority could effectively give instructions to the regional flood authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Section 1(2) of the Land Drainage Act 1976 is deleted by Schedule 27 of the Bill and replaced by Clause 135(5). The proposed amendment to Schedule 15 is therefore inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, the amendment to Clause 135 is very similar to Amendment No. 387 which your Lordships decided to reject in Committee. Alas, we must continue to disagree.

1329
The NRA is generally required to discharge its flood defence functions through regional flood defence committees. As Clause 8 requires the NRA always to have an eye to conservation, it follows that the authority's management of water in general is covered by that duty. In the case of Clause 9 nothing in any direction of the authority can take away the duty to consult the NCC or, if relevant the national parks or Broads authority, before carrying out or authorising any environmentally insensitive works. My noble friend Lord Renton is quite right. The reason for the particular type of direction in Clause 135(5) is to resolve conflicts of priority between flood defence and other functions and not to lessen general conservation duties.
I should also emphasise that flood defence committees will themselves be subject to the NRA's environmental duties and obligations at Clause 8(1) to (3). This reflects the current position with water authorities which is clearly set out in our conservation guidelines for drainage authorities. The guidelines also clearly describe the committees' obligations concerning SSSIs. This advice will be updated when the code of practice is introduced in accordance with Clause 10. The Secretary of State for the Environment recently announced that he was asking the NRA to look into the question of rising water levels under London and other cities.
I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that these amendments are unnecessary and inappropriate, and I ask him kindly to withdraw them.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lady for a very careful reply. As it was so full and complicated I shall have to take it away and study it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 132M:
Page 140, line 48, at end insert—
("( ) Where the functions of any water authority immediately before the transfer date include, by virtue of any local statutory provision, any functions relating to flood defence—

(a) those functions shall become functions of the Authority on that date; and

(b) subject to the power conferred by section 189 below, the local statutory provisions relating to the functions transferred by this subsection and everything done by or in relation to a water authority under any such provision shall have effect, so far as may be necessary for the purposes of, or in connection with, the transfer of functions under this subsection, as if—

(i) any reference in any such provision to a water authority were a reference to the Authority; and

(ii) any such thing had been done by or in relation to the Authority.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment transfers to the NRA powers or savings related to water authorities' functions under extant local Acts.
Water authorities have sometimes needed to promote Private Bills to undertake major flood
1330
defence schemes. This amendment transfers powers to carry out such works to the NRA who, under the provisions of this Bill, will take on the water authorities' flood defence and land drainage functions.
Water authorities also enjoy savings under some local Acts, for example those concerning construction of harbours or major bridges, to protect their flood defence interests. The amendment would transfer such savings to the NRA.
This is a straightforward, tidying-up measure and I commend it to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments of the Land Drainage Act 1976]:
[Amendment No. 132N not moved.]
Clause 136 [Establishment of regional flood defence committees]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 141, line 22, after ("of) insert ("the following, none of whom shall be a member of the Authority, that is to say").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 140 [Functions of Authority in relation to fisheries]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 146, line 21, at end insert ("are not members of the Authority but").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one which I moved earlier. It concerns the question of whether members of the National Rivers Authority should sit upon their own advisory bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, earlier in Report stage your Lordships accepted similar amendments relating to membership of regional rivers advisory committees in Clause 2, and regional flood defence committees in Clause 136. The Government have no difficulty in accepting this amendment regarding the fishery advisory committees. I commend it to the House.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 146, line 25, at end insert—
("(1A) As part of its duties under subsection (1)(a) above, the Authority shall not rear fish for the purpose of stocking fisheries unless such suitable fish are unavailable from any other sources").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under Clause 140 the National Rivers Authority is required to look after all fisheries, whether they concern eels, fresh water fish etc. This amendment says that if they have to stock rivers in order to perform their duties

1331
they should not farm fish unless there are no fish available from any other source.
I repeat that I am a fish farmer. My fish all leave the farm dead, and I do not think that that would be of much use to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
There are fish farms all over the British Isles. It is probable that in nine cases out of 10 the needs of the NRA can easily be supplied on a proper commercial basis. However, what is worrying is that the National Rivers Authority is in charge of abstraction licences and discharge consents.
In Committee, during debate on an amendment about the cost of abstraction licences in particular, and discharge consents, I asked whether the cost of the licences would relate directly to the cost of adminstering them. My noble friend on the Front Bench gave me a fairly good answer but at the end he rather spoilt it and left me in some doubt as to the scale that those licences would reach. To my mind it is an open-ended matter. The NRA will be drawing money from fish farmers, and it can do with it whatever it pleases.
We now have the situation where the NRA, under its duties to look after fisheries, has fish farms of its own. Two things follow from that. First, we return to the gamekeeper/poacher syndrome, because presumably the NRA would have to grant themselves an abstraction licence and cost it, and a discharge consent. There would be very considerable suspicion among fish farmers, or a resentment, whether right or wrong, that the money that they have paid for their licences is being used in direct competition with them by reason of the NRA having its own fish farms in order to discharge its proper duties.
I worded the amendment carefully so that the NRA can have fish farms and breed fish if nothing suitable is available. That seems to be a reasonable way of solving the problem.
It may wish to experiment or breed different kinds of fish. I do not know whether or not that is desirable, but it would be covered by the fact that those kinds of fish would not be available. Therefore it would be reasonable for it to breed its own fish.
This is a sensitive matter with fish farmers. I know that my noble friend will consider it very carefully. It is wise to think of something along these lines to obviate the future friction and suspicion, which I am sure will occur.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the river purification authorities of Scotland have often restocked fish, particularly brown trout, which are not normally produced in fish farms. They have done a marvellous job when there has been an accident and a lorry has driven off of a road and spilt all sorts of muck into the rivers. The work that has been done in Scotland has been very much appreciated. I have never heard anybody object to any of the Scottish river purification authorities restocking rivers. I should not like the National Rivers Authority for England and Wales to be restricted in any way.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, as a member of the Anglian Water Authority, I have been extremely
1332
impressed by some of the very sensitive fish-rearing programmes that have been instituted by that authority. I recognise that the subject may be sensitive and that my noble friend Lord Radnor does not wish to see a public authority set up in competition with a private fish-rearing enterprise.
One of the features of the Anglian Water fisheries rearing activities is something that is known as ORSU which, so far as I remember, stands for off-river supplementation unit. This is an extremely imaginative and sensitive way of rearing fish for re-stocking under natural circumstances. It is an extremely valuable way of preserving genetic resources of fish from a locality. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Radnor refers to rearing fish,
"for the purpose of stocking fisheries".
That is clearly what is happening in these ORSUs. I feel that his amendment goes far wider than the anxieties that he no doubt feels. I hope that the amendment will not be accepted in its present form. It is too inhibiting for some of what I regard as excellent work, both biologically and in terms of conservation and good fisheries management, being done by the water authorities.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Amendment No. 136 would mean that the NRA could only rear fish for stocking fisheries if suitable fish are not available elsewhere. I wonder whether my noble friend realises that the amendment would not place any restrictions on the NRA from farming fish for the table. I assume that he would not wish it to do that.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, surely farming fish for the table has nothing to do with the duties to keep fisheries in good order, has it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am informed that my noble friend's amendment would not prevent that from being undertaken. I have great difficulty in accepting the principle of this amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Cranbrook for what they have said. The amendment would mean that the NRA was never able to farm its own fish all the while "suitable" fish were available elsewhere. I think my noble friend would, on reflection, have to agree that this would create the most anti-competitive seller's market imaginable.
Fish farms would be able to charge what they liked for their fish. The NRA would not have the option of producing those fish themselves. The authority's choice would be a stark one. It could either decide not to buy, which would mean fisheries went unstocked and the NRA could be failing in its duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries. Alternatively, it could buy the fish at whatever price the fish farmer names. Neither choice would be in the best interests of fisheries.
My noble friend asked about abstraction licences and discharge consents. The scale of fees for abstraction licences has still to be settled. The concerns of fish farmers are well known. I hope that what I have just been saying has swayed my noble friend into deciding to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, at least I am happy that once more the feelings of fish farmers are made well known. I cannot agree with many of the things that my noble friend said. I admit that in my heart of hearts there is a lurking feeling that the NRA should have this capability. I hope that it will use its fish farming side, however large it is, with great care. I believe it is in its own interests not to have ill feeling that can so easily brew up between fish farmers and the NRA when they should be complementary to each other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 146 [Powers of entry etc.]:
Baroness White Baroness White moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 150, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) For the purpose of this section "reasonable time" shall mean such time as is necessary to gain entry into any premises or vessel for the purpose of discharging the functions of the Authority under any enactment to which this section applies.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment because it has been brought to my notice that there is some concern in a number of the NRA's regional rivers divisions as to the possible interpretation of the rights of entry that are conveyed in Clause 146. It will be part of the regulatory function of the NRA to enter sewage treatment works on a regular basis to take routine samples of water and effluent in order to check compliance with standards and with consents.
If the authority cannot be guaranteed unhindered access to these works then the fear is that the results obtained will not be truly representative. A more serious situation arises where a pollution incident is suspected and the NRA needs to obtain formal samples with a view to possible prosecution. It will be essential that the authority should be in a position to enter premises without advance notice and at a time when it is considered appropriate to obtain the necessary evidence.
If there is confusion as to the interpretation of the authority's powers under the Bill as it now stands, this will seriously erode its enforcement role. It is for this reason that it is proposed that "reasonable time" shall be construed according to the circumstances of each particular incident. Otherwise it will often prove impossible to obtain the necessary evidence to pursue a successful prosecution.
It has also been pointed out to me that many sewage treatment works are unmanned and that access to such sites may be extremely important. I understand that local negotiations are taking place already in some regions, but again the authority's powers of access must be clearly understood by sewerage undertakers. It has been suggested to me that where a sewage works is left unmanned for a considerable period of time the NRA will expect to have keys in order to exercise its right of access.
Further, it is known that water treatment works often discharge plant effluent on a sporadic basis. For example, cleaning work involving changes of dirty filters will generally be carried out at night.
1334
This may lead to a polluting discharge into the river. Again, immediate and unimpeded access is absolutely essential. I hope that these considerations have been carefully considered by the Minister who is to reply and that full account can be taken of them. I hope that the proposed amendment is suitable to meet the difficulties that I have described.
Perhaps I may make one other comment. The words used in Clause 146(3) are identical to words used in Clause 59(3) at page 70. The latter clause deals with the powers of entry of local authorities. The functions of local authorities are quite different from those of the National Rivers Authority. Prosecutions of the kind that have been mentioned for dealing with particular immediate difficulties are not really applicable to local authorities. For that reason it did not appear necessary in any way to propose amendments to Clause 59. However, it appears to me that an amendment to Clause 146 is highly desirable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, when I read Clause 146(3) with the activities of the water authorities in mind, I understood that the term "reasonable time" meant a reasonable time of the clock or a reasonable time of the day. Except in an emergency it would be normal practice to consider it unreasonable to exercise the power of entry other than between, let us say, the hours of nine o'clock and five o'clock. In an emergency, occasionally it will be necessary to go in at any time of the day. There might be variations, as the noble Baroness mentioned, in relation to the nature of the premises. It seems to me that the amendment refers to time duration rather than to time o'clock, which is what I take to be the issue.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, this amendment concerns the limitation placed upon the time at which the NRA may seek to gain admission to premises for the purpose of the pollution control responsibilities. Clause 146 says that it must be "a reasonable time", and the amendment seeks to make clear that this can be interpreted as reasonable in terms of the NRA function and the purpose for which it is seeking entry.
We believe that the Bill already covers this point, and that "reasonable" must be judged as to include appropriate NRA functions and particular purposes in securing entry. Thus if the technically right time to sample an effluent is outside the discharger's working hours, then it is still reasonable that the NRA be given admission at the inconvenient time. But while we think the amendment is unnecessary, we shall consider the question further, and if we conclude that there is any doubt on the matter, we shall come back to the House with an amendment. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to leave the issue on that basis.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, and I shall be happy if the Government take time to consider further this matter. I would not have thought of putting down the amendment had I not been approached by those

1335
who are anxious about the possible difficulties that might arise if there were a lack of clarity about the interpretation of Clause 146. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 138:
After Clause 147, insert the following new clause:

("Requirement to take samples of effluent.

.—(1) Where an analysis of samples of water or effluent taken for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part III to this Act reveals that an offence may have been committed under section 106 above, the Authority, unless it considers it unreasonable to do so, shall take or require to be taken samples of the effluent concerned in accordance with section 147 above on the next two occasions that samples are to taken of that effluent.
(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence on the evidence of samples taken under the provisions of subsection (1) above the court may, in addition to any other order it may make, order that person to pay the reasonable cost incurred in taking any samples for the purposes of that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which proposes a new clause after Clause 147, is an amended version of an amendment which I moved in Committee on 23rd May at cols. 269 to 272 of the Official Report. It has been amended to take full account of the Government's objections to the wording of the amendment at that stage. The Government objected to the fact that the NRA should have to take full samples in every case. Hence the words,
"unless it considers it unreasonable to do so",
have been introduced to safeguard the NRA's position in that respect. The Government also objected to the NRA having to take five such samples as that was considered to be too expensive; so in this case we have proposed two.
The rationale for the amendment remains the same. We seek to ensure that the power of private prosecution is not negated because most people do not have the power to enter on to land and to take samples. We very much hope that, in this amended form and in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in speaking on behalf of the Government on the previous occasion, said that they had some sympathy with the amendment, the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I immediately pay an acknowledgement to the noble Lord for the changes that he has made which in part reflect the concerns which we expressed earlier. However, he has not taken on board our fundamental concerns. We believe that this is an area in which the NRA must be left to reach an appropriate conclusion in the particular circumstances of each case. Given that prosecution may follow, it is surely supremely an area where discretion should be left to the enforcement authority and where the appropriate steps should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
That said, I can repeat the earlier assurances that I have given. The NRA will have an obligation under the Bill to take such numbers of tripartite samples as is necessary for effective enforcement of the legislation. Tripartite samples are essential for
1336
prosecution, and the NRA will have to ensure that the option of prosecution is kept available whenever appropriate and whether the prosecution is by the authority or some third party.
I feel sure that in these circumstances the noble Lord will agree with me that there is no fear that sufficient tripartite samples will not be taken.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments and for the assurances that he has given. I am sorry that he was not prepared to accept the amendment where efforts were made to take account of what we thought to have been the Government's objections to the previous proposal. However, I should like to study carefully what he has said and perhaps come back to it at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 150 [Compulsory purchase etc.]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 153, line 7, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 139A:
Page 153, line 14, at end insert—
("Where the land to be disposed of is to be used for commercial purposes incidental to the statutory purposes for which it was originally acquired, the land shall first be offered for sale to the person from whom it was originally acquired, or their successors in title, at a value to reflect the restrictions on the use under which the original compensation was calculated.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee (at col. 328 of the Official Report) I raised the question of what was incidental commercial development. At col. 329 my noble friend Lord Caithness said that such a phrase was difficult to define but that land originally acquired under compulsory purchase order at existing use value might then be available for some other purpose. He gave as an example an hotel. I commented at the time that I found his reply interesting. I am now no wiser as to what his definition means as I was then at two o'clock in the morning.
I hope that this amendment will solve my noble friend's problems by stating the Crichel Down principle. If land became available for such purposes as an hotel or a duty free shop, that land should be offered back to the original owner who of course would be free to negotiate with the developer. It is only fair for the original owner to be offered this ability to make a profit. Indeed it was stated by my honourable friend Mr. Howard in Committee in another place on 2nd March (at col. 1511 of the Official Report). He said:
"The terms of any general authorisation have yet to be settled but we are considering a formula that would require water companies to have regard in appropriate circumstances to the Crichel Down rules".
If a water plc merely transfers the land to commercial use to, for example, Land Leisure, the

1337
company which Welsh Water is setting up as a subsidiary, we shall have a problem over the Crichel Down principle. However, I should not have thought that it is insoluble.
My noble friend has made much play of the proposed consultation paper on compensation. I hope he will now be able to say that, bearing in mind the difficulty we are having in coming to a decision on what is or what is not "incidental commercial development"—the Government's phrase—in particular in regard to the Crichel Down point which I mentioned, he will now include in that consultation paper the basis of compensation. It seems illogical that the Government will not concede this essential need in their consultation paper. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may seek to worm my way back into the favour of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, by saying that I support the principle of the amendment. I thought that the Crichel Down principle had been well covered in the amendments moved by the Government last week. If I am wrong about that, the noble Lord's amendments certainly deserve the support of the House.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, all the time the Government plan to stick to the fundamental compulsory purchase rule of Section 5(3) of the 1961 Act, which is not a popular basis at all—not only in my view but in that of many others. What my noble friend suggests is an extremely important palliative, which would help matters considerably. I think that the Government will have difficulty in persuading the public—especially the property-owning public—to the view that there is no difference between compulsory purchase for a nationalised industry and that for a public utility company. As a matter of political judgment, they will have difficulty over that issue. That is why I believe that this palliative is a most significant one.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to make a few remarks from the operational point of view. Land may be compulsorily purchased, let us say, to create a reservoir. It would be natural for the plc to be required under the terms of this legislation to run recreational facilities and fisheries on that reservoir, and to do so on a commercial basis. That situation appears to be caught by the very wide reference to,
"Commercial purposes incidental to the statutory purposes for which it was originally acquired",
contained in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Stanley.
Let us consider another set of circumstances. Let us suppose, for example, that land to build a sewage treatment works is acquired by compulsory purchase. A sewage treatment works may—as have some sewage treatment works in Anglia—develop a very cunning process for utilising sewage sludge by turning it into a compost and selling it. That is advantageous both environmentally and economically. However, it is again caught by these wide terms of incidental commercial activities.
1338
Therefore, from the operational point of view, when the plcs are in future conforming to the many duties which they are required to carry out, they may be caught by an amendment which is so very wide in its terms.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is intended that a general authorisation will be issued to each undertaker and to the NRA requiring disposals to be made in accordance with the Crichel Down rules. So far I think that we are all on the same side. However, I must now put a stop to the unseemly behaviour of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who wishes to get back into favour with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I hope that he realises that this amendment is not really about the principle of disposal; it is about the price to be obtained in a very limited set of circumstances. Indeed, I suspect that the amendment is really more about the compensation payable on compulsory purchase, which we debated fully in Committee, than it is about disposals.
As I explained in Committee, the basis for compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land is that the landowner receives the market value of the land, including any value attributable to the prospect of the development but excluding any value arising only from the scheme for which the land is being taken. This is fair, because it is what the land would have fetched for the owner had he chosen to sell it if there had been no compulsory purchase.
The general rule when a public authority disposes of land is that it should obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. This rule has applied even in the cases where land is offered back to a former owner under the Crichel Down rules. Where the character of the land or its surroundings has changed it is therefore possible that when compulsorily acquired land is offered back its market value will have changed substantially from the value on which compensation was based. But provided that the original compensation was fair there is nothing unfair about asking the former owner to pay the changed market price. The fact that he might have benefited from the change in value had he been able to retain ownership of the land is not relevant since he had been free to reinvest his compensation in similar land and the particular changes in the value of the compulsorily acquired land were outside his control.
Therefore, what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is doing, is supporting my noble friend Lord Stanley who wants to increase the bonus to a farmer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Touché!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I recognise that my noble friend's amendment is concerned only with the limited case where land has been acquired for a statutory purpose and is then disposed of because it is no longer needed for that purpose but has acquired value because it can be used for a commercial purpose which is incidental to the statutory purpose. But, it is unlikely to be the case that land will simply become surplus and available for an incidental

1339
purpose without having first been used for the purpose for which it was acquired.
The intention of the amendment also runs counter to the policy announced last week on the price and proceeds from land disposals. As my noble friend Lord Hesketh explained, the intention is to enable customers to benefit from the net receipts from future disposals of land. In disposing of land, water and sewerage undertakers will be required to demonstrate that the best price reasonably obtainable has been obtained. That would not be achieved if the benefit of changes in land use and planning permissions were to be ignored in determining the disposal price, as my noble friend proposes by way of his amendment.
To sum up, the landowner is fairly compensated under the land compensation code when compulsory acquisition takes place. It is right, as is recognised by the Crichel Down rules, that if the land is surplus to requirements it should be offered back to the landowner. But since he was fairly compensated in the first place, there is no reason to give him any discount on the open market value of the land when it is offered back.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Crichel Down rules have been looked at most carefully in the past. However, I was trying to suggest to the House that they could perhaps be used with benefit as regards this problem over "incidental commercial development", which the Government have been offering to landowners as a kind of palliative to all the ills in the world.
I see the problem that this proposal would pose. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook pointed out, I think that the amendment is too wide. I fully take the point which he made. However, he emphasised the point which my noble friend did not answer. It is a complicated and difficult problem. The Government have commissioned a consultation paper on compensation. But the one thing which they will not allow as regards that paper is discussion in relation to this very matter. Indeed, they will not allow consultation on the basis of compensation. It seems to me to be quite ridiculous.
I shall not ask my noble friend to break the rules of the House and reply again, but I shall ask him to take the matter away and think about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not even wish to bend the rules of the House, but I have been referred to in the last two speeches. I am bound to say that I am convinced by what the Minister said, even if by saying that I forfeit the friendship of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. All I can say is that it seems quite impossible for me to remain friends with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend on the Front Bench. However, I may go to Heaven because it seems that I have made friends with both of them by moving this amendment. Nevertheless, in all seriousness, I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to think seriously about trying to alter the
1340
rules as regards the consultation paper so as to include discussion on the basis for compensation.
In the meantime, although it is somewhat earlier than yesterday when my noble friend and I met to take tea and solve some problems, I think that it may be better if we tried to solve the present problem over supper tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 140:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause:
("Restriction on disposals of land
.—(1) The Authority shall not dispose of any of its compulsorily acquired land, or of any interest or right in or over any of that land, except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Secretary of State or the Minister.
(2) A company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act shall not dispose of any of its protected land, or of any interest or right in or over any of that land, except with the consent of, or in accordance with a general authorisation given by, the Secretary of State.
(3) A consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section shall be set out in a notice served by the Secretary of State or the Minister on the person who is or may be authorised, by virtue of the provision contained in the notice, to dispose of land or of interests or rights in or over land or, as the case may be, on every such person.
(4) A consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section may be given on such conditions as the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Minister considers appropriate.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, the conditions of a consent or authorisation for the purposes of this section may include—

(a) a requirement that, before there is any disposal, an opportunity of acquiring the land in question, or an interest or right in or over that land, is to be made available, in such manner and on such terms as may be specified in or determined under provision contained in the notice setting out the consent or authorisation, to such person as may be so specified or determined;

(b) a requirement, in the case of a consent or authorisation for the purposes of subsection (2) above, that the company making the disposal has complied with such of the conditions of its appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act as relate to the disposal of its protected land or of any interest or right in or over that land;

(c) a requirement that such a company, before making a disposal in a case in which the land in question is situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in a designated area, should do one or both of the following, that is to say—

(i) consult with the Countryside Commission; and

(ii) enter into such agreements under section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (management agreements) or such covenants under subsection (6) below as the Secretary of State may determine;

(d) provision requiring determinations under or for the purposes of the consent or authorisation to be made, in such cases as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above, either by the Countryside Commission or only after consultation with that Commission.

(6) Where a company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act is proposing, in such a case as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above, to dispose of, or of any interest or right in or over, any of its protected land, it may enter into a covenant with the Secretary of State by virtue of which it accepts obligations with respect to—

(a) the freedom of access to the land that is to be afforded to members of the public or to persons of any description; or

(b) the use or management of the land;

and a covenant under this subsection shall bind all persons deriving title from or under that company and shall be enforceable by the Secretary of State accordingly.

1341
(7) Section 8 above shall have effect for the purposes of this section as if every proposal which—

(a) is made by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker with respect to land in a National Park, in the Broads or in a designated area or with respect to any interest or right in or over any such land; and

(b) is a proposal for which the Secretary of State's consent or authorisation is required under this section,

were a proposal relating to the functions of that undertaker.
(8) In this section "compulsorily acquired land", in relation to the Authority, means any land of the Authority which—

(a) was acquired by the Authority compulsorily under the provisions of section 150 above or of section 153 below;

(b) was acquired by the Authority at a time when it was authorised under those provisions to acquire the land compulsorily;

(c) being land which has been transferred to the Authority in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, was acquired by a predecessor of the Authority compulsorily under so much of any enactment in force at any time before the transfer date as conferred powers of compulsory acquisition; or

(d) being land which has been so transferred, was acquired by such a predecessor at a time when it was authorised to acquire the land by virtue of any such powers as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above.

(9) In this section—
"the Broads" has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988; and
"designated area" means any area which—

(a) is for the time being designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty for the purposes of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; or

(b) is for the time being designated by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument as an area in relation to which this section should apply as if it were in a National Park, the Broads or an area of outstanding natural beauty.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 140A to 143F not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that the House may feel that this is a convenient moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Report stage of the Bill at 8.40 p.m. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill
7.40 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This measure was introduced by Michael Marshall, Chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, in another place, where it was supported by officers of the British group of the IPU from all parties. Unfortunately, due to the procedures of another place which I must say amateurs like me sometimes find rather confusing and do not always understand, the Bill was not discussed in any detail, and was subsequently found to have technical defects, which I shall now attempt to explain and
1342
which will form the basis of amendments to be considered in Committee.
The objective of this small measure is defined in the title; namely,
"to set up a register of publicly-financed international organisations".
However, because of the way that those organisations are constituted and funded, three of those in the schedule—the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Western European Union—should not been included in the Bill. It is proposed that they be deleted in Committee.
It might be for the convenience of the House if I did not refer to them in my subsequent remarks but talked only about the IPU (the Inter-Parliamentary Union) and the CPA (the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association). One of the reasons for the deletion is that the register is intended to cover organisations which are in receipt of an annual grant in aid to fund both British and international secretariats. The words:
"are in receipt of an annual grant in aid",
will be added to the title and Clause 1(1) in Committee.
The British secretariats of both the IPU and the CPU work to fixed budgets and receive funds from the Treasury which cover the costs of the British secretariat in London and their respective quota contributions to the international secretariats, which for the IPU is in Geneva and for the CPA is in London. I hope that that technical explanation will assist the House when it considers this small but important measure.
Perhaps I may say a word about the work of the IPU, of which I have the honour to be on the British executive committee. The Bill was the suggestion of the IPU, which this year celebrates its centenary. The centenary conference will take place in London in September. The IPU was formed 100 years ago by Britain and France. It is now comprised of 112 member nations, most of which will be present in London in September.
It would take too long to explain all the many useful activities undertaken by the IPU, which in London is served by a small but hard-working secretariat. It is interesting to note that neither organisation has any real power but they provide a forum for the meeting of parliamentarians from all over the world in the case of the IPU and within the Commonwealth of Nations for the CPA. They both promote the concept and the virtue of parliamentary democracy. Plenary conferences take place twice a year and specialist or regional meetings more frequently. There are inward and outward delegations on a bilaterial basis.
The most important aspect of the work is perhaps the bridge building that takes place between nations when government-to-government relations may be difficult. I should like to cite three examples. It is interesting to remember that Mikhail Gorbachev, now President of the Soviet Union, made his first visit to Britain in 1984 as the leader of a parliamentary delegation invited and hosted by the IPU.

1343
On a smaller scale, after the restoration of democracy in Guatemala, the first visit to Britain for many years was an IPU-sponsored parliamentary delegation. That led rapidly to the restoration of full diplomatic relations. Thirdly, in the case of Argentina, there has been an effective bilateral discussion between members of the two parliamentary delegations at every IPU conference since the restoration of democracy.
All those are important confidence creating activities. One could go on for a long time, but brevity is essential. I hope that what I have said will illustrate the importance of this measure, subject to the modificatons which I have already explained and which will be introduced in Committee. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for his explanation of the Bill and the reason for it. We are all aware of the excellent work done by the CPA and the IPU as worldwide organisations of parliamentarians. Many of us have experienced visits to other countries under the auspices of one or other of those organisations and have helped to receive visitors from other countries when they come here. The bridge building mentioned by the noble Viscount is important.
We should think especially of the IPU this year as it has its centenary conference. As the noble Viscount said, its membership has increased from nine countries 100 years ago to 112 this year.
There will be a women's conference attached to the centenary conference. I have attended two such conferences in Guatemala and Budapest. I shall be at the one in London on 3rd September. I should like to stress the importance of women parliamentarians, because there are far too few of them. The women's conference was set up to try to encourage more women to take part and to persuade men to accept the women gladly and give them a few more jobs. We now have two women members on the executive council of the IPU, so things are moving. As we shall have Miss Betty Boothroyd chairing the conference on 3rd September in London, it is almost bound to be an extremely successful day. I hope that we shall get things moving a little faster. It is a great opportunity to hear the views of women from all over the world and to learn what goes on in their countries.
Of course we do not have a good representation in the other place, and it is rather difficult to do anything about that at the moment, but we shall go on trying. It means that we do not have many women standing for the executive. In fact, I am the only woman on the IPU executive in London. That is a great shame. We should have more. That has nothing to do with the Bill, but I could not resist the opportunity to say it.
I wish the Bill a safe passage and a swift acceptance. We shall have to have a Committee stage to deal with the amendment that has been described. I should also like to wish the CPA and the IPU all
1344
success in the future, which I am sure that they will have.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing the Bill, for his explanation of it and for his elucidation of the amendments which are to come. I hope that he is not creating a precedent for future Bills or the House would be in considerable difficulty.
I know that I speak for everyone when I say that we respect and admire the work of the IPU and the CPA. The noble Viscount and my noble friend Lady David have spoken eloquently about both organisations. I know that we appreciate the work that my noble friend Lady David does on the executive. It is said by its members that she is worth at least four men.
I have been a member of both organisations for nearly 40 years. I have been privileged on occasion to travel abroad as a member of the delegations and to welcome delegations here. These meetings between parliamentarians cover a wide spectrum; we must remember that the IPU now covers 112 parliaments, and over the century it has done nothing but good. We wish the IPU and the CPA continuing success over the next 100 years. The bridge building process to which the noble Viscount referred must go on and the Bill, which gives both organisations a recognised constitutional position, deserves our warm support.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, it may be helpful if I say a few words about the Bill from the Government's point of view. As my noble friend Lord Montgomery has explained, it requires the Government to lay before Parliament each financial year a register of those international parliamentary organisations which are publicly financed. These organisations, which draw their membership from both Houses of Parliament, are at present funded by grants-in-aid from a Treasury Vote. The reasons for this are largely historical and were intended to reflect the independence of those bodies from government policy. The Bill, by creating a register showing the amounts of money actually allocated, aims to give legal embodiment to this publicly financed status.
I have listened with interest to what my noble friend has said about the Inter-Parliamentary Union and about the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The IPU and the CPA are the two parliamentary organisations which will be affected by this Bill. I join with my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken during the course of the debate in paying tribute to their achievements. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Montgomery on having introduced the Bill and I wish it every success.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, very much for what they said. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness about the CPA, with which she is much more familiar than I. Having had the pleasure of travelling with her on an overseas delegation to

1345
an IPU conference, I can fully endorse her views on the subject of the role of women in parliament. Long may that role continue and go from strength to strength.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. If I may say so, he has been more than usually helpful. I wish I could always say that that was the case, but this is a delightful occasion on which to say how grateful I am for his endorsement. With those words, I commend the measure to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.40 p.m.]

Water Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 140, Amendment No. 143G:
In the proposed new subsection (7), line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 143G is a simple amendment but it raises a particularly important question. What protection will the Bill provide for the conservation and recreational use of water industry land which may be put up for sale and which is not situated within a special area? It is, I believe, a matter of considerable concern that there will be no protection. The special duties in the Bill mean that water undertakers must have regard to conservation and recreational needs on their land. The Government have introduced welcome amendments to ensure that this protection will extend to all land in which they have an interest, whether functional or non-functional.
But what if the plcs decide to sell off the land? That is a different matter altogether. Yes, the Secretary of State must now consent to the sale. That is a very good change to the Bill. However, my great concern is that unless the land in question happens to be situated in a special area such as a national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty or some other such area, none of the provisions of the new clause 150 for management agreements, consultation or the protection of covenants will apply. In particular, the Secretary of State will not even be bound by the general duties to the environment and recreation which are set out in Clause 8. It is this specific omission which my amendment seeks to put right.
I am glad that the Government have moved to give protection to important areas of countryside which the water companies might sell off. However, in doing so, and in deliberately excluding from this
1346
protection land which is "down the hill", they have left vast tracts of water industry property starkly exposed. 1 do not believe that it is too ungenerous to the Government to say that that is their intention. The Minister responsible for water made it quite clear when he announced amendments concerning the profit sharing of revenue from disposals of land that the Government believe that, particularly in urban areas, some of the water industry's surplus land has valuable development potential. He said quite categorically that the effect of his amendments was:
"to give the companies an incentive to make efficient use of land and to encourage disposals".
The Government have wielded a two-edged sword. By giving special protection to countryside of high environmental importance and by extending duties in the Bill to non-functional land they have focused the developer's eye on the water industry's lowland. However, we need to be concerned about this land also. I am not seeking to make a case that it is land which deserves precisely the same special protection as areas of high environmental importance. As a Conservative I do not object to the principle that land surplus to requirements might be disposed of. I suspect that such freedom of manoeuvre on the part of the water companies will be vital to ensure a successful privatisation. However, some of this lowland is important for recreational use. It provides ready and traditional access for the majority of the population who live in towns and cities. My submission is simply that, when the Secretary of State comes to consider whether he should grant his consent to a proposed sale of land such as this, he should at least have regard to its conservation and recreational importance.
The way to do this is to place on him the same duties as are placed on all relevant bodies over land which they own; indeed the same duty which is to be placed on the Secretary of State himself for land of special importance. In a single change of word, my amendment would secure this.
Nothing in my amendment would prevent water authority lowland from being sold off. I have been particularly anxious to table an amendment which is realistic and which preserves water companies' freedom of commercial manoeuvre. But at least the needs of recreation and conservation would be considered before a decision was made to allow the sale. I do not believe this would place an unreasonable burden on the Secretary of State. On the contrary, I think it is unreasonable to permit a loophole in the Bill which places duties on water companies which are simply extinguished, not when land is actually sold, but effectively before the decision to sell is actually made.
We need to listen to the views of recreationalists, who are particularly concerned about this matter. The Central Council of Physical Recreation, which represents 53 nationally recognised governing bodies of sport, believes that popular recreational facilities are in danger. It is one thing to encourage a privately owned water industry to dispose of its assets, but it is quite another for it to dispose of recreational facilities, land of even moderate conservation value and land which is important for local people, with

1347
impunity. This is a straightforward, logical amendment which I ask my noble friend to consider. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment. The Government have, with Amendment No. 75 already agreed to, extended the Clause 8 environmental duties to cover all land, not just functional land. Therefore, the water and sewerage undertakers, the NRA and the Secretary of State will now be bound by their Clause 8 duties on their activities relating to all land.
However, when it comes to the disposal of land, the Clause 8 duties will apply only if that land is located in a national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty or a designated area. It seems particularly odd that proposals for the disposal of land should not come under the same Clause 8 duties in all cases. After all, the Secretary of State has to give his consent for all disposals. Surely the relevant parties should still be bound by their environmental and recreation duties when considering disposals of land. This is a simple amendment. I hope for once that the Government will agree to accept it. I believe they will find that this provision is not already contained within the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the essence of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Norrie requires that the Clause 8 duties, or more importantly the duty to further conservation of flora, fauna and natural beauty, shall apply to the Secretary of State's consideration of all disposals and not simply those that concern land within national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other designated areas. We have some sympathy with the noble Lord's concerns. However, I must tell him that I think his amendment goes too far.
The Clause 8 duties are onerous ones, particularly the duty to further conservation. We believe that that is a proper duty to maintain on the undertakers in performing their duties and managing their land. But the question is whether that should carry through in all circumstances to the terms of each and every sale. The Government's position is simple. In the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas which are designated specifically for the protection and furtherance of conservation the duty is appropriate. It is consistent with overall planning policies and the purposes of those designations.
What is the position elsewhere? In redundant sewage works in urban areas there may be an urgent need to develop that land for housing, employment or other important social needs. The existence of SSSI designations will protect flora and fauna. I shall be going into that in further depth when we come to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, which immediately follows this amendment. But, over and above that, to have a duty to further conservation applying would, we believe, go too far and could prejudice the decision which may need to be taken about the future use and development of the land.
We believe that it is a matter of balance. We believe that the main issues for conservation and
1348
amenity in the water industry estate will arise in the countryside catchment lands. Application of the duty is reasonable there. Elsewhere we believe that it is less appropriate and could, as I say, inhibit proper consideration of all those other factors—housing, employment and urban renewal—which must be weighed in the balance.
I remind your Lordships' House that the Secretary of State can, by order, designate areas which do not fall into the areas which I outlined when I moved Amendment No. 140 last week. It is very important to keep that important power in mind. It is for that reason that I hope that my noble friend Lord Norrie will be able to resist the temptation to press his amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his lengthy reply. In view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 140, Amendment No. 144.
In the proposed new paragraph (9)(a), line 3, after ("1949") insert—
("( ) is for the time being notified as a site of special scientific interest under section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed during the long debate last week on a vast number of amendments. I gave notice then that I wished to bring it back because I particularly wanted to respond to the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in his summing up of that debate.
The purpose of Amendment No. 144 and its consequential amendments is to include sites of special scientific interest in the designated areas which would be subject to the scrutiny of the Secretary of State or the Minister before disposal under the provisions of the proposed new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, in his response to the main debate last Thursday, was concerned that this amendment would create two classes of SSSI—those in water plc land and those outside. But that is precisely what the Government themselves are proposing to do in the case of national parks. There is to be special protection for national park land owned by water plcs and a different level of protection for national park land not owned by water plcs. So the principle of two classes has been established.
The Government admit the importance of sites of special scientific interest but in the case of those outside the Broads, the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty they ask us to rely on existing protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and on planning procedures. Last week I gave some examples of how those procedures have failed to protect many valuable sites. I remind the House that in its 1987–88 report the Nature Conservancy Council listed 114 sites of special scientific interest which had suffered damage during that year. Twelve of those sites had been subject to planning controls. The sites which will be

1349
at risk as a result of water privatisation include many lowland reservoirs, which are essential habitat to a third of Britain's wintering population of waders, geese, swans and ducks, which travel here from as far away as Scandinavia, Greenland and Siberia.
I mentioned last week the development pressures on Rutland Water which regularly holds up to 7,000 wintering wildfowl. It has been notified as a site of special scientific interest and it requires special protection under the European Community birds directive and the RAMSAR Convention. Yet in 1987 Anglian Water extended the fishing season without even consulting the Nature Conservancy Council. If that can happen when land is owned by a water authority what hope is there that a commercial organisation will be more protective unless so obliged by the kind of control in the Government's new clause?
The Blackwater estuary, also a site of special scientific interest, holds 30,000 wintering birds and meets the criteria for designation under the birds directive and the RAMSAR Convention. Despite those international obligations planning permission has been given to infill part of the estuary with domestic refuse. Clearly the existing protection for sites of special scientific interest is not good enough.
We now have an opportunity to improve protection for those sites affected by the Bill. It is difficult to understand why the Government are so reluctant to act, given their new "green" image. Is it because they perceive a conflict between the needs of conservation and the political aim of a high value flotation? We argue that since our proposed amendment would still leave the Secretary of State or the Minister to exercise discretion the effect on the value of the flotation would be minimal.
I have one small final point. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said last week (at col. 976) that the Government recognised that they had not clarified on the face of Amendment No. 140 the circumstances under which the order-making process might be relevant and that they might return to the matter at Third Reading. Can the Minister tell us whether he has had any further thoughts on the matter? That might be helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, during the earlier debate I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in seeking to bring SSSIs within the scope of the Government's new clause. The number of SSSIs damaged each year and the circumstances which allow them to be damaged demonstrate that the existing system of consultation and planning control is inadequate. I welcome the Government's new clause since it provides a safety net to catch sites which are to be disposed of and empowers the Secretary of State to direct that vulnerable wildlife habitats and landscapes should be subject to covenants or management agreements.
Since SSSIs are vulnerable to damage and, indeed, likely to be more vulnerable to damage as a direct result of increased commercialisation of the water industry, it is imperative that they enjoy the benefit of new measures being given to protect water
1350
authority land which is located in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We heard during the Minister's response to evidence presented from all sides of the House that the Government were anxious not to create two classes of SSSI. We heard also that the Government's new clause would enable the Secretary of State to apply the provisions to certain SSSIs or any other land of exceptional conservation value. Since SSSIs have been designated for their special value it seems sensible to include them formally within the scope of the new clause.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I too spoke to this amendment when it was first brought forward. I reiterate that we should do as much as we can to protect wildlife habitats, particularly those in urban areas. I spoke at some length about reservoirs in the inner London area which provide a considerable natural habitat and are beneficial to many forms of wildlife. They also provide an amenity for the benefit of the residents of the capital. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the new clause in Amendment No. 140. However, I should like an assurance from my noble friend that the designation power will be used readily for land which is of the same importance as national parks, such as the Broads or other AONBs? Can my noble friend also advise me whether SSSIs such as the Elan Valley and Lake Vyrnwy will be designated?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I and my colleagues, in common with the rest of the House, have listened with interest and sympathy, to the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, my noble friend Lord Norrie, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Blatch for the inclusion in specific terms within the arrangements for Amendment No. 140 of sites of special scientific interest.
The principal reason given for doing so was the implication in a number of speeches that the Government were not giving due consideration to sites of special scientific interest and were generally failing to give appropriate protection to them and to lowland areas in the event of disposal. I should not apply that argument to the point raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch, who took a slightly different tack in the debate.
So far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, that is inaccurate. I have to remind the noble Baroness that we have preserved in this Bill the duty to further conservation and that we have supplemented this with a conservation code, welcomed by the Nature Conservancy Council, which incorporates in its terms the council's advice to us. Finally, in Clause 9 we have strengthened notification procedures to secure proper co-operation by the water and sewerage undertakers and the NRA with the Nature Conservancy Council.
The fact is that those steps demonstrate that, in the Bill, we have had the most careful regard for conservation and SSSIs. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have the fullest

1351
regard for the conservation of flora and fauna, and the Bill shows that.
But let me move on from that general line of argument to the specific arguments of the proposers of the particular amendment.
The underlying argument is, I must tell the House, built upon a misunderstanding. It is the misunderstanding that, because certain sorts of designated areas such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are treated in a particular way, so should others. But, for the purposes of the Government's proposals, there really is no equivalence between the two cases. SSSIs differ from the national parks and AONBs in three critical ways.
First, SSSIs are generally small, local and specific, where particular needs have been identified and provided for in very specific and precise ways. By contrast, the national parks and AONBs are simply broad planning designations covering very large areas. They cover widely differing circumstances and ownerships. They simply distinguish broad areas of environmental merit.
Secondly, the fact of designation as an SSSI carries with it a specific and detailed protective regime, tailor-made to particular circumstances. That is not the case with national parks and still less with AONBs. Protective arrangements in the form of management agreements can be entered into, but the fact is that they cover relatively little of the relevant areas. That, then, is another reason why their cases should be treated differently.
But there is a third reason. That goes back to the underlying reasons for the Government's proposal as I explained them to the House on Thursday. Our purpose must be fundamentally to protect things done by the water authorities in pursuit of their present environmental duties which could not be protected by planning and countryside legislation in the event of a disposal. That would cover concessionary access arrangements. It might cover landscapes, traditional agriculture or other conservation measures. Those are most likely to be found—and, as a matter of fact, are mainly found—within the confines of the national parks and the AONBs. But the one place where special unprotected features will not be found is in SSSIs, where they have already been identified, designated and, most importantly, are subject to a control regime which carries forward to successor owners. We all want to protect our vulnerable heritage of flora and fauna, but we must not fly in the face of logic and reason in attempting to do so.
It is for those three reasons that I do not believe that the noble Baroness is correct in suggesting that we have already set a precedent in regard to two classes.
Another reason why certain of the key provisions of the clause and the application of the Clause 8 duties are restricted to the relevant sites in national parks and AONBs is that these largely distinguish the "catchment lands". They are a distinctive category of water authority land, and they have been subject to a particular history and management regime in respect of public access, amenity and conservation. That is what the Government's
1352
proposals acknowledge. They use national park and AONB designations as a broad sieve: within them the balance of probability is that special protective measures will be appropriate. Elsewhere, the balance of probability goes the other way.
But we recognise that it is only a balance of probability, and that, outside the national parks and AONBs, there will be some special cases. The Secretary of State is therefore given a power by order to designate areas to be treated as though they were within them, if they meet the key test: are there features of the conservation or amenity, provided by or protected by the water authorities, which could be jeopardised by sale to new bodies not subject to the Clause 8 duties? Where necessary, lowland areas can be protected in that way, and in practice they may well include SSSIs.
Finally, there is the requirement to give a particular purchaser an opportunity to acquire the land. That must be at full market value to protect the companies and their duties to their shareholders, but it could in principle cover SSSIs, were the Secretary of State to conclude, for instance, that the pattern of undertakers' disposals was putting SSSIs in some way at risk.
The Government's proposals focus particularly upon the national parks and AONBs. We believe that it is necessary and right, for the reasons that I have given, that there is no reason for other areas—such as lowland SSSIs—to be automatically included. But I tell the House what I told it on Thursday: we have not forgotten the lowland areas and SSSIs. There is machinery to bring them in in particular cases if the need arises. That is why the Secretary of State has a designation power in new Clause 140. It is a power with a purpose, in answer to the question of my noble friend Lady Blatch concerning the Elan Valley and other areas of a similar type.
I am afraid that, for those reasons, we cannot support incorporation of the amendments, as they stand, in our new clause, as that stands.
But let me add that we are prepared to look again at the drafting of the new clause in the light of the debate today. We are prepared to see whether we can make clearer the circumstances in which SSSIs and relevant lowland areas can be subject to the protection in the new clause, and ensure that the reasonable concerns expressed are covered, so far as is appropriate, in the light of the points that I have made tonight.
It is unlikely that we can go all the way that the noble Baroness wishes, for the reasons that I have given, but I am preprared to consider the issues further. I hope, however, that this may be of some assistance to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and that she may not feel it necessary to press the amendments as a result of what I have said. I leave the matter in the hands of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I should like to reiterate that we appreciate the attempt in the new clause to cover our conservation worries. It has gone a long way, as we said in the earlier debate, and we are happy with

1353
it. However, I am still not very happy with the provision for SSSIs. The Minister keeps returning to the planning protection which has patently not worked. I have produced examples to show how it has not worked. But I appreciate the fact that he will look again at a possible clarification of the words that may go some way to meet our worries. I do not therefore propose to press the amendment this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144A to 146A, as amendments to Amendment No. 140, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 140 agreed to.
Clause 151 [Laying and vesting of pipes etc.]:
[Amendment No. 147 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 19 [Powers with respect to the Laying and Maintenance of Pipes etc.]:
The Earl of Airan The Earl of Airan moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 275, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) In this Schedule "relevant waterworks" means any waterworks which contain water which is or may be used by a water undertaker for providing a supply of water to any premises; and in this sub-paragraph "waterworks" includes any relevant pipe and any spring, well, adit, borehole, service reservoir or tank.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 147A on behalf of my noble friend, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 147B, 147C, 147D, 148A, 149ZA, 164 and 165ZA.
Schedule 19 sets out the powers conferred on the authority and water and sewerage undertaker to lay and repair pipes and carry out associated works. Schedule 25 makes provision for minor and consequential amendments to various enactments affected by the provisions of the Bill.
Section 21 of the Water Act 1945 provides for a person to be guilty of an offence by polluting a groundwater supply, that is, a spring, well, borehole or adit, the water from which is used for human consumption. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 164 and 165ZA is to extend the provisions of this section to cover pollution of the water supply distribution network as well as the groundwater source. This provision, together with the provisions in Clauses 61 to 63, will ensure that water for human consumption is protected from pollution from its source to the point that it reaches the consumer.
Amendments Nos. 147A to 147D, 148A and 149ZA are consequential to the amendments to Section 21 of the Water Act 1945. Their purpose is to provide for a water undertaker to be able to carry out necessary works to ensure that the water in the water supply distribution network is not polluted. These provisions will increase the protection against pollution of our drinking water supplies. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, government Amendment No. 165ZA deals with the issue of local
1354
authorities not being allowed to carry out this work on the grounds that the water undertakers' personnel were the ones who were medically screeened for that work. Can my noble friend confirm that I am right in thinking that there may well be a problem with this set of amendments on the same grounds? Perhaps this work should be carried out by the water undertakers and therefore this matter may need to be looked at again? I understand that the Water Authorities Association is talking to the department about this issue. Does my noble friend have an update on that situation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that the local authorities will not have any powers in respect of enforcement. I hope that that answers the question put to me by my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that was the local authorities and that matter has been dealt with. However, this set of amendments refers to the NRA and sewage undertakers in addition to the water undertakers. I wondered whether that presented the same problem.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the agreement of the House and in particular my noble friend, perhaps we may look at that point again and come back to it later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 147B to 147D:
Page 276, line 23, after ("street;") insert—

("(bb) to carry out in a street all such works as are requisite for securing that the water in any relevant waterworks is not polluted or otherwise contaminated;").

Page 276, line 25, leave out ("or (b)") and insert (", (b) or (bb)").
Page 278, line 4, after ("land;") insert—

("(bb) to carry out on any such land all such works as are requisite for securing that the water in any relevant waterworks is not polluted or otherwise contaminated;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 278, line 6, leave out ("or (b)") and insert (", (b) or (bb)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 149 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 149ZA:
Page 278, line 22, leave out from ("description;") to end of line 24 and insert—
("(ii) the power conferred by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(bb) above; and
(iii) each of the powers conferred in relation to the powers mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(c) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 149A:
Page 278, line 25, leave out from ("only") to ("and") in line 27 and insert—
("(i) in an emergency or when a pipe is laid in order to comply with a requisition under this Act, after reasonable notice has been given to the owner and occupier of the land;
(ii) in all other circumstances, only after the consent of the owner and occupier has been given, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; any question whether such consent is or is not unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with entry of the plcs in order to lay pipes on land whether it be land of large or small expanse. Under Schedule 19 they are required to give reasonable notice of their intentions. In the amendment that requirement has been expanded considerably but with no detriment whatsoever to the Bill, in that it is required that negotiations should take place in advance of such an operation and that permission should not be unreasonably withheld. There should be proper negotiation between the people who will enter and lay the pipeline and those who will, so to speak, receive it.
At the same time, as laid down in the first part of the amendment, any emergency situations such as those referred to in Committee are perfectly adequately dealt with, so that if some matter of public health or whatever arises there will be no particular worry and matters can be expedited. The amendment returns to the kind of situation that existed under the 1945 Act which I understand worked perfectly well. Since 1974, when the situation was altered, there has been a great deal of trouble.
There has been a very wide interpretation of what is reasonable notice. Owners have been asked to allow pipes through at rather short notice. They then find that the plans for those pipes have been laid two years before and that they could have been told much earlier so that they could have discussed them. Pipes have been put through land at harvest time or during lambing, at some inconvenience. Concurrent with that there have been difficulties afterwards in obtaining payment promptly.
It is right that this situation should be altered. Perhaps I may give noble Lords an extreme example about which my noble friend knows. It indicates that it is not just a matter for large landowners. In 1972 Esher Urban District Council wished a pipe to be laid through a certain Mr. Hutton's property, which was a bungalow. The reasonable notice was given on 30th March 1972. On 2nd May the council entered, the pipe was laid, the bungalow was destroyed, and on a complaint the whole performance was upheld by the courts. Such a possibility may seem extreme but it happened. It is to avoid such a situation that this amendment has been brought forward.
Oil companies and others operate under similar rules to those in the amendment. It seems quite wrong that water plcs should be treated in a different way. As I have said with many of my amendments, not only does it seem unfortunate that a great deal of inconvenience, worry and distress have been generated, but it is a pity that ill will may also be generated. I appreciate that there is a procedure
1356
under Clause 159 to sort such matters out in retrospect. Again, I do not think that that is desirable. We do not want such action to be in retrospect but in advance and properly within the terms of this amendment. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Radnor on this amendment. I very much hope that the Minister will look at it closely and do his best to help.
The report of the Country Landowners' Association states that this power has caused more dissatisfaction and ill will than any of the other statutory powers at present given to the water authorities. There have been complaints about lack of consultation in advance. My noble friend has already mentioned that when plans are being formulated, sometimes two years in advance, there may still be no consultation until the very last moment when it is too late to change anything. I have suffered from lack of supervision of contractors. We had a main put through at our home some years ago. Other issues were lack of enthusiasm to restore land, difficulty and delay in settling compensation afterwards and drainage systems not repaired. I recollect the most appalling problems which dragged on for two or three years after the matter was supposed to have been completed, if only it had been satisfactorily installed, which it was not. A number of mistakes which might so easily have been avoided and could have saved compensation were not discussed in time.
The Minister has promised us a statutory code in future instead of the voluntary one. Ministers have argued that this will be a sufficient safeguard. However, I fear—and I must express this fear very strongly—that it will operate only after everything has gone wrong. I believe that the solution lies in making water and sewerage companies operate, if possible, in the same way as the gas and electricity undertakings—in other words, to enter on to land only with the agreement of the owner and only after terms and conditions have already been negotiated. That would obviate continued and, I believe, unnecessarily frequent reliance upon compulsory powers. The amendment allows for different and more rapid procedures in emergencies.
Before 1974 the situation was different when the 1945 Act was in operation. That is the position we want to return to. I do not believe there was ever much evidence that the pre-1974 system under the 1945 Act did not work perfectly well. All that we have added is that now there is power to enter with consultation in emergencies.
Like my noble friend Lord Radnor, I do not want to see further cases such as Hutton v. Esher Urban District Council to which he referred. I believe that that sums it up. I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider this.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment for the simple reason that a limited right of entry with an emergency provision is a sensible proposal.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment strongly. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, have already given specific examples of how extremely unsatisfactory the present state of affairs is. How much worse will it be when private profit-making companies are allowed to ride roughshod over farmers and other landowners, both large and small, including, by the law of averages, some perfectly ordinary householders. What makes it even worse is that these are at present immense powers conferred upon non-privatised companies; not quite as great as those conferred upon VAT inspectors, but heading that way. The powers have been in existence for barely 15 years and were not even preceded by an Act of Parliament, with the full scrutiny of both Houses which that would have entailed, but instead the provisions were implemented by means of a statutory instrument.
It is no good the Government saying that these quasi governmental powers are being conferred on private profit-making companies, but that the companies are not really working for profit but almost altruistically for the public good. Even if one could swallow that, I suppose one could say the same thing about the oil companies which supply the petrol with which the public gets to work, the supermarkets which supply the food on which the public lives, and British Gas which supplies the gas by which the food is cooked. If it is argued that privately owned water undertakers are different because in this case public health is involved, one could reply that gas—that volatile and dangerous substance—also involves public health, and that supermarkets involve public health from time to time when one reads about dangerous hazelnut yoghurt.
If it is really true that water and sewage are so special from the public health point of view that these somewhat draconian powers must be granted to the undertakers, the Government in effect are tacitly admitting that public health makes an uneasy bedfellow with private profit, which is what many of us have been saying all along about the whole Bill. I hope the House will support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, one can but sympathise with the motives which have been supported in various quarters of the House and which have inspired the amendment. However, frankly, I am rather worried. I think that it could create an unreal situation. In the public interest water and sewerage undertakers must have power to lay or relay pipes as necessary in order to maintain the system. In the words which are proposed to be deleted the clause requires reasonable notice. I believe that that covers the actuality of the circumstances which are likely to arise.
There are a couple of minor defects in the wording which could be put right if necessary on Third Reading. However, on balance, having listened to the sympathetic speeches which have been made and having looked again at the exact wording in the schedule, I prefer the schedule as it stands.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. There are circumstances in which a satisfactory water supply and sewerage arrangements are of paramount importance and essential to public health.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House will be aware that water authorities are currently able to lay pipes after serving reasonable notice on the owners and occupiers of the land through which the pipes are to run. The consent of the owners and occupiers is not needed. We have decided that these powers should be retained by the NRA and water and sewerage undertakers for public health and operational reasons.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that satisfactory water supply and sewerage arrangements are essential to public health. The NRA and water and sewerage undertakers would, I know, be the only public utilities with this power. The water industry can however properly be regarded as operating in a different context from other utilities Undertakers need to be able to replace defective private water supplies with public ones and complete major sewerage schemes quickly and without the delays that would be involved in seeking the consent of every landowner involved and where: consent was not forthcoming referring the matter to the Secretary of State.
As my noble friend Lord Arran explained when this was raised in Committee, we are aware of the scope these powers may offer for arbitrary behaviour by undertakers and it is for this reason that we have decided that the powers should be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the private companies to the Secretary of State for approval. Copies of the model code, on which the statutory codes will be based, are available in the Library. Unlike the voluntary codes which already exist in some water authorities, these codes will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general.
In addition, Clause 160 provides for the director general to direct an undertaker to make a payment to a complainant if he is satisfied that an undertaker has failed to consult the owner or occupier before or during pipe laying, or by acting unreasonably has caused them to suffer loss or damage or to be inconvenienced.
There is also provision in Clause 159 for undertakers to be required to alter or to remove a pipe in response to a reasonable request from a person with an interest in the land where the pipe is installed or in adjacent land. That is as a result of a government amendment made in Committee and I believe that it changes the picture which we were debating at an earlier stage. There will be recourse to the director general in cases where a person considers that an undertaker has refused to comply with a reasonable request to move a pipe. An undertaker will be able to recover from the person the expenses it reasonably incurs in carrying out the works. This will go a long way to ensuring that land crossed by pipes is not permanently sterilized.

1359
I know that in raising this issue a second time my noble friends are greatly concerned about the powers that will be available to the water industry. I hope that they will accept that the powers are essential for operational, and perhaps more importantly, public health reasons.
My noble friend Lord Radnor gave an example of what he considered to be an unacceptable practice. I can also speak with experience because during the late 1970s I acted for and against water authorities and water companies. At that time some of their practices were not as good as one would have expected. However, I believe that there have been certain improvements since then. In fact, I made a particular point of seeing whether the matter could be improved because I have some sympathy with my noble friends and I am very grateful to my honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning for what he has been able to do to try to alleviate the concerns of my noble friends.
Perhaps I may repeat that the powers will be subject to new controls, not only in the form of a statutory code of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State but also in the form of a requirement to move pipes which we believe will ensure that landowners receive a greater degree of protection than now. Therefore, I say to my noble friend Lord Radnor that I do not think it is fair that we should compare directly what happened in the example which he gave with the situation in the future. If this amendment were to be accepted, it would place a severe constraint on the ability of the authority and undertakers to carry out the works required of them and which in many cases are essential to public health.
Perhaps I may give my noble friend an example. If the water industry was currently required to operate under the constraints proposed in my noble friend's amendment, I think he would find that the recent London ring main may not have been built. I do not believe that that could have been classed as an emergency but it was certainly desirable. I wonder whether my noble friends would agree that the water authority would have found it possible to undertake such a beneficial project if it was required to negotiate and reach agreement with the many different landowners—hundreds of thousands of them—affected by that scheme, as required by the amendment of my noble friend.
We have given this very serious consideration and have gone a long way to meet some of the valid concerns under the present rules. I hope that in the future we shall have a much better regime under which everybody can work.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking at such length on this subject. I believe it is very important. It certainly deserves and perhaps in the future will still deserve considerable discussion and debate. As regards public health and emergencies and that kind of concern, which has been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Renton, I believe that both my noble friends are rather ignoring the
1360
first part of the amendment which I believe would deal with that situation.
As regards Clause 160 and the code of conduct, Clause 160 really comes rather too late in the day to help the sort of troubles which have occurred over the years and which I can quite see will still occur in the future.
As regards the ring main of London or perhaps the ring main of any other city, I was not aware that that had been built. However, I feel that such considerations, where large multiple negotiations would have to take place, should somehow be dealt with on a more satisfactory basis than "reasonable notice" and perhaps in some way, which I cannot quite pinpoint at the moment, which will not detract from the general trust of the amendment so that people are not short of water and help in those kind of circumstances.
I cannot possibly say that I shall not go away and look at this very carefully and I cannot say that I shall not raise the matter again at Third Reading. I believe that it would be good if I could have access to my noble friend to discuss this further before Third Reading. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 20 [Orders conferring Compulsory Works Powers]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 283, line 30, after ("copy") insert (", accompanied by a plan showing the effect of the order on the path or way,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I wish to move Amendment No. 151A. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 15IB to 151F which are grouped with Amendment No. 151A and form part of a whole so far as the amendments to Schedule 20 are concerned.
The Bill provides for the National Rivers Authority and water undertakers to apply to the Minister for an order authorising them to carry out works which could be as extensive as the construction of a new reservoir. The order may contain provisions consequential upon the approval of the works and in particular may authorise the stopping up or diversion of a public footpath or bridleway which may be flooded when a new reservoir is built.
The Ramblers' Association and others who use the countryside for recreational purposes are concerned to ensure that when such an order is applied for the public at large has the opportunity to be informed of the proposal. The public may then make informed comment upon, or object to, the proposal as it does in the case of proposals to divert or stop up public footpaths or bridleways.
The provisions of the Bill derive from earlier legislation: the Water Act 1945 and the Water Resources Act 1963 as amended by the Countryside Act 1968. Since that legislation was passed certain improvements have been made to the powers which

1361
are used more generally to change footpaths and bridleways. The amendments seek to bring the powers conferred in the Water Bill into line with that situation. We regard them as being fair and reasonable in their administrative requirements.
Amendment No. 151A would require that the notice of the draft order which has to be put on site should be accompanied by a plan showing the footpaths and bridleways affected and the effect of the order. At present the notice does not have to state that the order affects footpaths and bridleways. There are precedents for this proposal. In the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Parliament amended the powers most commonly used to divert or stop up footpaths or bridleways, so that similar plans have to be put on site with notice of orders made under those sections.
Amendment No. 151B would require the notice to be placed in the local newspaper to make it clear that the order affects footpaths and bridleways. At present the notice merely has to state the general effect of the order. There is no specific requirement to tell the public the exact effect of proposals. This is a commonsense amendment requiring no more than the addition of a sentence or two to a notice which has to be published in any event.
The provision in paragraph 1(3)(e) for persons to give prior notice to the authority is taken from the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Highways Act 1980 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 concerned with orders affecting footpaths and bridleways. The amendment, which seeks to ensure that national organisations concerned with footpaths and bridleways, such as the Ramblers' Association, automatically receive notification of draft orders, is taken from the same legislation.
If the provision in the Bill is justified then so is Amendment No. 151C. Paragraph 1(1)(d)(iii) requires the draft order and any relevant map or plan to be made available for public inspection. The amendment would ensure that where the order proposed the stopping up or diversion of a footpath or bridleway there would be a plan showing existing and proposed paths and ways which would be available for public inspection with the draft order. With the Bill as presently drafted there might or might not be a relevant map or plan. That situation was accepted by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in Committee on 23rd May at col. 307.
Highway authorities have responsibility for mapping and maintaining footpaths and bridleways and their information is used by the Ordnance Survey, as the Minister acknowledged on 23rd May. Unless there is a proper plan with the order such authorities will not have the information which they need to carry out their work properly. Amendment No. 151D provides for this situation.
Amendment No. 151E extends the provision enabling anyone to purchase a copy of the draft order also to have any relevant map or plan. If the map or plan is relevant to the order then it is logical that the same provisions as to purchase should apply.
Amendment No. 151F would ensure that public notice was given when the decision to make an order
1362
had been taken and that the Ordnance Survey would be informed. At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Arran, stated that such notice was unnecessary because there was no further opportunity to object and because any objectors to the draft order are automatically notified of the outcome.
As to this latter point, there is nothing in the Bill that requires the Minister or the applicant for the order to notify the objectors. The need for the amendment arises because there are bodies that have an interest in knowing that such an order has been made even if they have not objected to the draft order. Such bodies include the county, district and parish councils of the area as well as bodies such as the Ramblers' Association. In all other legislative provisions authorising the stopping up or the diversion of footpaths and bridleways, there is provision for a final decision to make the change to be notified to the public and to local authorities. There is no reason why these powers should be any different. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very doubtful whether in primary legislation we should have as much detail of an administrative kind as we find in Schedule 20. The amendments add to that detail and so far as I can follow them, they add somewhat unnecessarily to it. There is one point that I have to confess does not arise strictly regarding the amendments. I hope that I am not out of order in referring to it. When we come to page 285 and paragraph 4(1)(c), we find that where an application for an order has been made under Section 153 that enables rights of way to be interrupted or abolished——
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but can he give me the reference again?
Lord Renton: My Lords, the reference is page 285, paragraph 4(1)(c). The result is that if an application has been made for an order by an undertaker and a notice of objection has been received by the Minister from any person on whom a notice has been served or—and this is the point I am coming to—
"(b) from any other person appearing to the appropriate Minister to be affected by the order as submitted to him or as proposed to be modified … then, unless the objection is withdrawn, the appropriate Minister shall, before making the order, either cause a local inquiry to be held or afford to the objectors … an opportunity (of) being heard".
When a right of way is brought to an end, any member of the public or every member of the public, can be affected. It seems wrong that the Minister should decide which members of the public, and only they, should be entitled to a public inquiry. Therefore I feel that whatever view my noble friend may take on these amendments—I shall not be surprised if he rejects them all—nevertheless, he should look at the effect of paragraph 4(1)(b).
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall certainly have a look at what the noble Lord has said and seek advice on the point that my noble friend makes

1363
regarding Schedule 20, paragraph 4(1)(b). Returning to the amendment specifically moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I have listened with great care to what he said. We had a similar debate at Committee stage as the noble Lord will know. I hope that he will agree that I should take away his amendments for further consideration because I believe that he had some quite useful points and convincing arguments. Perhaps we can discuss them
1364
between now and another stage to see whether we can find something that can satisfy us both.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, In view of it, I shall resist the temptation to say anything to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151B to 151F not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Clause 159 [Duty to move pipes etc. in certain cases]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 151G:
Leave out Clause 159 and insert the following new clause:

("Duty to move pipes etc. in certain cases.

159.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where any relevant pipe or apparatus (whether above or below the surface) is kept installed by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in any land which is not in under or over a street, any person with an interest in that land or in any land immediately adjoining such pipe or apparatus may require the undertaker to alter or remove such pipe or apparatus on the ground that the alteration or removal is necessary to enable that person to carry out a proposed improvement of the land in which he has an interest.
(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercisable only after 28 days notice has been given to the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker specifying the nature of the proposed improvement and the period within which the undertaker is required to alter or remove the relevant pipe or apparatus.
(3) Where a person gives a notice under subsection (2) above it shall be the duty of the undertaker to comply with any requirement contained in the notice unless the undertaker, within the period of 28 days beginning with the receipt of such notice, gives that person a counter-notice which—

(a) states that, by virtue of subsection (8) below, the person is not entitled to require the alteration or removal of the relevant pipe or apparatus and specifies the reasons for so stating; or

(b) refuses to remove the relevant pipe or apparatus on the ground that—

(i) the requirement is unreasonable; or

(ii) the requirement would prejudice the carrying out of the undertaker's functions; or

(iii) there is no reasonably practicable alternative position in which to place the relevant pipe or apparatus; or

(c) specifies the estimated period (if a longer period than that specified in the notice) which the undertaker requires in order to alter or remove the relevant pipe or apparatus and such security as the undertaker may reasonably require to be provided for the discharge of any obligations imposed by virtue of subsection (5) below on the person serving the notice.

(4) Where a counter-notice is given under subsection (3) above, the undertaker shall alter or remove the relevant pipe or apparatus only—

(a) in a case under paragraph (c) of that subsection, if the person to whom the counter-notice is given agrees to the matters specified under that paragraph; or

(b) in accordance with the determination of the person appointed under subsection (6) below.

(5) Where a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker carries out any works under this section by virtue of a notice having been served by any person under subsection (1) above, or takes steps with a view to carrying out any such works, the undertaker shall be entitled to recover from that person an amount equal to the expenses reasonably incurred in or in connection with or in consequence of the carrying out of those works or the taking of those steps.
(6) Any dispute as to any matter arising under a counter notice served by virtue of subsection (3)(b) or (c) above, or as to the amount of any sums recoverable by the undertaker under subsection (5) above, shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator appointed by agreement between the parties or, in defualt of agreement, by the Secretary of State.
(7) Where for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) above any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either—
1366

(a) by the undertaker with the approval of the Director; or

(b) in default of a determination under paragraph (a) above, by the Director,

on every sum of 50p so deposited for every three months during which it remains in the hands of the undertaker.
(8) This section shall not apply—

(a) where any relevant pipe or apparatus is kept installed by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker on land in which that undertaker has a legal estate or legal interest; or

(b) where the undertaker can show that it or a predecessor of the undertaker has paid compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation in the value of the interest in the land in which the relevant pipe or apparatus is kept installed to the person entitled to that interest at the time of such payment.

(9) The duty of a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker under this section shall be enforceable under section 20 above by the Director.
(10) In this section—

"improvement", in relation to any land, includes any development but does not include any change of use or any improvement with respect to the supply of water or the provision of sewerage services to any premises; and

"relevant pipe" has the same meaning as in Schedule 19 to this Act.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may open my remarks by correcting a typing error which was mine and not that of the Public Bill Office. In line 3 of subsection (6) of the amendment on page 16 of the Marshalled List the figure (6) should read (5).
The House may recall that Clause 159 was a new clause added to the Bill by a government amendment in Committee. I moved amendments to the clause seeking to ensure that the duty to alter or remove pipes would not apply if it would prejudice the carrying out of an undertaker's statutory duty or if there were no reasonable, practical alternative position for the pipes. My noble friend Lord Caithness offered certain assurances and I withdrew my amendment. Clause 159 had not been the subject of prior consultation with the industry before the Government put it down for debate, and since Committee stage the utmost concern has been expressed on behalf of all undertakers. Hence this new amendment which would replace Clause 159 by a radically different provision designed to address that concern.
Although the Government had based Clause 159 broadly on the precedent in the Telecommunications Act 1984, there is a world of difference between the inherent flexibility of a telecommunications cable and, for example, a massive water main or sewer laid at a gradient determined some miles away by the topography and the need for an outfall at a particular level and location. An obviously crucial consideration is that a diversion to accommodate development might well necessitate pumping in what had previously been a gravity system.
It is true that Clause 159 provides that the expenses reasonably incurred by undertakers in carrying out works may be recovered from the person requiring alteration or removal of apparatus, but there is a great deal of legitimate disquiet as to whether this power extends to all costs consequential upon the requirement. Subsection (5) of my amendment is therefore directed to securing this

1367
extension. Another cause for concern is that Clause 159 omits altogether the counter notice procedure for which the Telecommunications Act provides. The Government's argument that this procedure is necessary for that Act because enforcement lies through the court is not a convincing reason for its omission from Clause 159.
Subsections (3) and (4) of my amendment are therefore calculated to provide an appropriate counter notice procedure. Any dispute arising in relation to this procedure or as to the question of consequential expenses ought properly to be the subject of independent arbitration. Subsection (6) of my amendment provides for this. At the same time I have retained provision in subsection (9) for enforcement of the undertaker's duty by the director general who would thus be able, as was pointed out by my noble friend at col. 354 of the Official Report when we debated Clause 159 in Committee, to take into account all the relevant circumstances of a particular case in determining whether or not an undertaker's proposal to alter or move a pipe was reasonable. The director general is also given power under subsection (7) to approve or determine the interest to be payable by an undertaker where sums are deposited with it as security for payment of the undertaker's expenses by a person requiring the alteration or removal. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend said, the principle we are discussing is precedented in the Telecommunications Act 1984. That legislation does not restrict the obligation in the way that this amendment proposes, and I am not persuaded that the position of water and sewerage undertakers is so different as to warrant a different approach, although I accept that the question of pipes in streets is less straightforward.
It should be open to all persons with an interest in any land in which a pipe is installed or in adjacent land to be able to require an undertaker to move or alter a pipe in order to carry out an improvement of the land in which he has an interest. The fact that an undertaker has a legal interest in the land in which the pipe is installed does not mean that land adjacent to the pipe line should automatically be sterilised indefinitely in so far as that land is concerned, as would be the effect of the amendment.
I have some sympathy with the concern that previously paid compensation should be taken into account. However, I am not convinced that it is a practical proposition to take account of compensation ofter paid many years previously, in many cases to past owners of the land in question, where even if amounts were known it is unlikely that the necessary detailed breakdown would be available. Moreover, it will be open to an undertaker to argue that it would be unreasonable to move pipes in cases where a landowner had accepted compensation often paid many years previously, in many cases to past owners of the land in question,
We fully accept that there would be circumstances when it will be unreasonable for undertakers to remove pipes. These could well be in the
1368
circumstances described by my noble friend. It is for this reason that we have included in the clause a role for the director general. If an undertaker considers that it would be unreasonable to remove a pipe, he is able to refuse to do so. The director general will take all the relevant circumstances of a particular case into account in determining the questions. A counter notice procedure is unnecessary in this case since the enforcement role will rest with the director general. The procedure is provided for in the Telecommunications Act because enforcement is through the courts. The Bill's provision already provides for the undertaker in carrying out any works by virtue of a notice served on it to be able to recover any expenses reasonably incurred.
I have said that I have some sympathy with some of my noble friend's detailed concerns and I undertake to look again at the provision in view of what she said, in particular in relation to the question of security for expenses incurred by the undertaker in connection with carrying out of the works and the question of pipes in streets.
In view of this and the general assurances which I have given, I hope that my noble friend will not seek to press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full and detailed reply and for his offer to look again at the matter between now and Third Reading. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 165 [Offence of interference with works etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 22 [ Water Quality in Scotland]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 295, line 13, after ("regulations;") insert—
("( ) provide for a contravention of the regulations to constitute—

(i) an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such smaller sum as may be prescribed; or

(ii) a offence triable either summarily or on indictment and punishable, on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and, on conviction on indictment, by a fine;").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments to Schedule 22 have the effect of incorporating new provisions on offences relating to water quality into the existing Scottish legislation. They are already in line with the provisions for England and Wales which are in the Bill.
Amendment No. 154 makes it an offence to contravene regulations made by the Secretary of State under the new Section 76B(2) of the 1980 Act. These regulations will control the use by the Scottish water authorities—the regional and islands councils—of any substances, processes and products which might affect the quality of their water supplies.

1369
They may prohibit the use of substances, require them to meet prescribed standards and set conditions for their use. The regulations also provide for a body to be set up to approve or refuse the use of such substances, and require any person to provide relevant information to that body. The amendment provides for any contravention of such regulations to constitute an offence punishable by an appropriate level of fine, and brings the Scottish provisions on these regulations into line with the provisions for England and Wales.
The regulations will provide important safeguards for the quality of public water supplies and for public health. It is equally important therefore to ensure that the regulations are enforced and that any contravention of them is punished appropriately.
I should like now to move on to Amendment No. 154A which will make it a criminal offence for a water authority in Scotland to supply water in pipes which is unfit for human consumption. The offence extends to any employee of a water authority if he is guilty of negligence. On summary conviction the water authority is liable to a fine up to the statutory maximum of £2,000, and on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine.
However, it will be a defence for the authority and its employee to show that they had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the water would be used for human consumption. For example, in Scotland it may well be that the water was supplied for agricultural or industrial uses. In those circumstances, all reasonable steps having been taken to ensure that the water leaving the authority's pipes was fit for human consumption, the provision would cover them, as it would if circumstances were such that they did not anticipate that it would need to be used for human consumption. Those provisions are broadly equivalent to those provided for England and Wales in Clause 54.
It is important to understand the context in which these offence provisions will apply. The main provisions in Schedule 22 will strengthen and extend the provisions relating to water quality in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980. In particular, they will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations on the "wholesomeness" of drinking water.
We propose to make comprehensive regulations which will incorporate all the standards set in the EC directives on the quality of drinking water—and indeed we will go further. The water authorities will have a duty to comply with the standards in the regulations, with certain limited exceptions.
I should make it clear that it does not follow that a breach of the regulations would necessarily constitute an offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption. The quality standards set in the EC directive incorporate a wide safety margin, and drinking water would have to exceed a quality standard by a very long way before it becomes unfit for human consumption.
Water which is not fit for human consumption should never be supplied to the public and I stress that the Scottish water authorities have an excellent record in that respect. However, neither south nor
1370
north of the Border can anyone afford to be complacent and the unfortunate incident at Camelford last year demonstrated that there is a gap in legislation which needs to be filled.
I hope that we would seldom, if ever, have to use the new provisions and as Lord Advocate I hope that it will never be my responsibility to instruct such a prosecution. However I believe that they will have the important effect of focusing the attention of the water authorities and their employees on the need to ensure that their activities do not lead to the supply of unfit drinking water. Their consumers, the general public, deserve nothing less. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Amendment No. 154A, in amending a previous statute, refers to water unfit for human consumption. We find that in new subsection (1) of what will become Section 76C of the previous statute. If we turn over the page of the Marshalled List, in subsection (4)(a) we find that we have a reference to water that is fit for human consumption.
It is proposed to amend Schedule 22 in the two ways suggested by my noble and learned friend; but if we refer to the foot of page 293 we find that there is a reference to water "regarded as unwholesome", not unfit for human consumption, and in the next line there is a reference to water which "has ceased to be wholesome". At various other points in Schedule 22, which my noble and learned friend is seeking to amend—for example, at the foot of page 295—we find a reference to unwholesomeness which is said to "cause a danger to life or health". There is another reference somewhere in Schedule 22 to unwholesomeness. So far in the Bill we have referred to the word "wholesome". Until we come to the Scottish law, we have not used the expression "unfit for human consumption". But now that we have come to the Scottish law we find that both the expressions "wholesome and unwholesome" on the one hand and "unfit for human consumption" on the other are used.
As my noble and learned friend knows so well—and I am sure that it is as true in the Scottish as in the English courts—when different expressions are used in the same Act of Parliament they are assumed to have different meanings. In order to find out the meaning of the word "wholesome" in the Bill we have to refer to page 77, where Clause 66 says:
" 'wholesome' and cognate expressions shall be construed subject to the provisions of any regulations made under section 65 above".
10 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am sorry but I must correct my noble friend. He should be referring to page 303. The definition of "wholesome" which he will see there refers to paragraph 76I, which is what we are dealing with in this part of the schedule.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I thank him also for having drawn my attention privately only yesterday to what Clause 66

1371
says about "wholesome". However, I think that what he said does not alter my argument that here we are using different expressions with the same intent. I believe that they have the same intent but if they are meant to mean something different—and we do not yet know the meaning of the word "wholesome"—my noble friend cannot challenge me on that——
The Earl of Balfour: No.
Lord Renton: That is because we have not yet had the regulations and will not receive them until some time after the Bill is enacted, presumably. Then we are in the difficulty as regards the schedule relating to Scotland that two different expressions are used, which, so far as I can see, have the same intent but to which the courts will be obliged, if they can, to attribute different meanings.
It may be that it is unfair to ask my noble and learned friend for an immediate answer to the matter. But it arises on the amendment which he has moved. It is a matter about which we should be clear because on the Bill, frankly, we have been going into a fantastic amount of detail. Everyone is involved in the use of water. It will not merely be the experts who will have to understand the Bill, people from the National Rivers Authority, the water undertakers and so on; it will also be people in local authorities, perhaps contractors, and the public who will be the consumers of the water. They may sometimes wish to know where their rights stand.
This is a matter, however technical, which we ought to try to get right. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will either be able to give an explanation now or to acknowledge that we are getting into a muddle which ought to be resolved at Third Reading.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may follow that. I feel that perhaps we should look more carefully at paragraph 76I. It states under "Standards of wholesomeness":
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that water that is supplied to any premises",
etc. I believe that we need to consider this rather carefully and I should be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser says.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to a possible inconsistency between the English, Scottish and Welsh provisions. Clause 54(4) places a restriction on prosecutions. It would appear that that measure is not included in the Scottish provision. I am not sure whether the Government intend to bring the provision of the Bill that applies to England into line with the provision for Scotland or whether they intend the provisions to remain different. There may well be particular reasons why the provision that applies to Scotland should be different.
I wish to refer to a slightly different point in connection with Clauses 54 and 175. Nevertheless,
1372
it concerns the same issue of consistency. In Clause 175 reference is made to,
"any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate"
who may be liable to prosecution for an offence.
The provision that applies to Scotland refers to any person being liable to prosecution. Therefore, it appears that the Scottish provision is drawn rather wide. Are the Government likely to consider bringing the English part of the Bill into line with the Scottish, or will the two provisions remain different?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am surprised that what I thought would be seen as a modest attempt to bring matters in Scotland broadly speaking into line with England and Wales should have been debated at great length in both this House and another place. I am surprised that this measure should have caused any query at all. However, I shall attempt briefly to explain the matter. We are not attempting, in any fashion, to introduce anything that is novel or different for Scotland. Without entering yet again into the political controversy about where the supply of water should rest, nevertheless I should say that the supply of water in Scotland will remain within the hands of the regional or island authorities. We have taken the view that if there should be any failure to supply water in terms of the regulations that the Secretary of State sets out, or circumstances occur where the water is unfit for human consumption, because the suppliers are still within the control of a public authority they should not escape prosecution. Those who supply water from within a private organisation would not escape prosecution in similar circumstances. Broadly speaking, that is why we have at this stage decided that it is important to introduce these changes.
However, there is certainly no intention to introduce a set of proposals which are markedly different from those provided for England and Wales. I would not like to say that I have slavishly copied what is provided elsewhere in the Bill, but it is quite clear to anyone who examines the matter that we have modelled the proposals for Scotland on the existing provisions.
I say to my noble friend Lord Renton that the term "unfit for human consumption" is already to be found in Clause 54 of the Bill. The clause states that,
"where a water undertaker supplies water by means of pipes to any premises and that water is unfit for human consumption the undertaker shall be guilty of an offence".
In those circumstances, we are introducing for Scotland nothing that is novel. We are simply introducing something that parallels rather than mimics or imitates what is provided for in England and Wales. My noble friend Lord Renton also raised serious questions concerning what was meant by the term "wholesome". I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for pointing out the provisions contained in the proposed new Section 76I within Schedule 22, where the standards of wholesomeness are set out in very considerable detail.
I hope that that explains exactly how the matter will be established. I certainly do not anticipate that I shall be looking to prosecute people in Scotland

1373
for providing water that was simply unwholesome. I might however look to prosecute people if they had failed as a water authority in the provision of proper arrangements to secure wholesome water for the general public.
When it comes to subjecting an individual employee to a criminal charge we should be considering the rather more restrictive and very much worse situation of providing water that was unfit for human consumption. There is a gradation that moves from wholesome water through to unwholesome water and, so far as concerns individuals, a criminal offence with which they might be confronted if they were neglectful of the provision of water that was unfit for human consumption.
This is an extension of those provisions to Scotland, and although little of this Bill, thankfully, extends to Scotland, we have achieved consistency. If we were not to achieve that consistency I should have expected far greater criticism.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wonder whether he would be good enough to answer the specific point that I raised. I accept that his explanation shows that English and Scottish law would be consistent with each other. It is also clear from what he said that the expression on the one hand of "wholesome" or "unwholesome" and the expression on the other of "unfit for human consumption" will appear both north and south of the Border. Is he saying that water can be wholesome but unfit for human consumption, or vice versa? With great respect, although "wholesome" has not yet been defined in regulations, it does not seem to me to make sense that we should use the two different expressions.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who is an expert on these matters of drafting. You cannot have water that is wholesome and unfit for human consumption, but you could have water that is unwholesome but is nevertheless not unfit for human consumption. That is the point that I sought to make. There is a gradation in these matters. It might be that the Secretary of State, by way of regulation, would seek to ensure that water that was unwholesome was brought up to standards of wholesomeness.
However, for an employee to be taken to task in the criminal courts for providing water that was unfit for human consumption would be a further stage down the road. I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that, as I see it, it is impossible to have water that is wholesome and at the same time unfit for human consumption.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 295, line 34, at end insert—

("Offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption.

76C.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, where a water authority supplies water by means of pipes to any premises and that water is unfit for human consumption the authority shall be guilty of an offence and liable—
1374

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(2) Where an offence under this section is proved to be attributable to any neglect on the part of an employee of the water authority, he as well as the water authority shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the penalty on conviction on indictment shall include imprisonment (in addition to or instead of a fine) for a term not exceeding two years.
(4) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to show that—

(a) there were no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the water would be used for human consumption; or

(b) all reasonable steps had been taken and all due diligence exercised for securing that the water was fit for human consumption on leaving the pipes or was not used for human consumption.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause:

("Nature conservation in Scotland.

. Schedule (Nature conservation in Scotland) to this Act shall have effect to make provision for Scotland in relation to nature conservation.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 155 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 159. I hope that noble Lords and Ladies who live north of the Border will not think it presumptuous of me to introduce these amendments which relate to Scotland. Though my seat is not in Scotland my heart is in the Highlands—or more accurately, the Lowlands, where I was brought up.
The purpose of the amendments is to apply to Scotland the same provisions for protection and enhancement of the natural environment as the Bill now provides for England and Wales in Clause 8, mainly in subsections (1) and (4). The main provisions of the Bill do not apply to Scotland. However, during Report stage in another place the Government introduced Schedules 22 and 23 under Clauses 166 and 167 to make provision for Scotland in relation to the quality of water and the control of the pollution of water. That was achieved by making the Scottish water authorities and river purification authorities responsible for those activities in line with the National Rivers Authority in England and Wales. It was done by amending two previous Acts applying to Scotland. Although the amendments are welcome, nothing was done to make provision in Scotland for promoting the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty or the conservation of flowers and animals—that is, "flora and fauna" in the official language—which are dependent upon the water environment.
The two amendments now proposed seek to correct that omission. That objective is achieved by adding a new schedule after Schedule 23, amending the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 which at present deals only with the cleanliness of rivers and other waters and not with conservation.
Since the Scottish river purification authorities are public bodies with many functions similar to those of the National Rivers Authority in England

1375
and Wales, it seems logical, and indeed essential, that they are subject to the same environmental obligations as the NRA in England and Wales. It is true that that imposes a new duty upon the river purification authorities; but it is a reflection of the influence that they can have on ensuring that our Scottish rivers and other waters are managed so as to support fish and animals, such as otters, aquatic plants and invertebrates, in the waters. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that that aim is of great importance.
Perhaps I may make one other point in explanation. While the NRA will have a duty to promote the use of rivers for recreation and to consider freedom of access to land in the discharge of its functions, I have deliberately excluded matters of access from the amendments since Scottish law on that issue is different from and more complex than the law in England and Wales.
The amendments have the full support of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and have been drafted in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council. I submit that the proposed new measures are simple in their effect; that they complement the schedules introduced earlier by the Government, and that they are also in line with the Government's avowed policy of protecting and enhancing the natural environment. I hope therefore that the amendments will be acceptable to my noble friend the Minister. But, although he may perhaps feel able to accept the objectives and principles of the amendments, he may not be happy about the way in which we have attempted to implement the principles and objectives through the amendments. In that case, I very much hope that he will give us an assurance to bring in suitable amendments, achieving the same objects and principles, at the Third Reading stage. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments. I believe that they are potentially of great beneficial effect to the environment in Scotland as they provide a requirement for the Scottish river purification authorities to promote nature conservation and the benefits for wildlife and the natural environment which should accompany that. The amendments call for the public bodies in Scotland to have the same duties and obligations as the NRA has in England and Wales. Thus, one of the truly beneficial parts of this piece of legislation will be extended to the whole of the country.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on this amendment because I am a little concerned in one respect. The river purification authorities in Scotland are financed out of the rates raised by regional councils, whereas the National Rivers Authority is financed by the Exchequer. I think that the Nature Conservancy Council is also entirely financed out of Exchequer funds. I am not at all sure that we should ask river purification authorities in Scotland to take over a duty that I believe should be carried out by the NCC in Scotland. That is the point that I wanted to raise.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment which I consider as common sense and an important point of principle. I recognise that the Scottish river purification authorities (RPAs) already have a duty to further nature conservation in so far as it is consistent with their functions. Earlier tonight we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that the Government have brought forward a new duty to be placed upon the NRA to promote conservation outside its other functions. This amendment provides the opportunity to impose a similar duty on the Scottish RPAs.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Caldecote has taken part in a matter of great interest to Scotland and indeed has moved an amendment which is concerned with Scotland.
The purpose of these amendments would be to lay a formal duty on the Secretary of State and the river purification authorities—the seven mainland boards and the islands councils—in carrying out their other duties and functions for controlling and preventing water pollution to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and amenity of water and to further the conservation of flora and fauna.
I suggest that these amendments are not necessary, and I wish to demonstrate why I believe that to be so. These proposals are very far reaching in their scope and extend well beyond the matters on which the department carried out extensive public consultations in 1986. We made it clear at that time, and again in 1988, that our intention in making legislative changes for Scotland through the Water Bill was to introduce a small number of measures relating to drinking water quality and to water pollution control, with the primary aim of maintaining a common line with England and Wales in the context of EC obligations. The amendments proposed by my noble friend would impose a duty which we could not accept without further consultation with those likely to be directly concerned, such as—and my noble friend Lord Balfour has mentioned this point—the river purification authorities themselves and others with a major interest in the water environment, including industry, fisheries and water authorities. For the following reasons we think that they are unnecessary and inappropriate.
The duty which these amendments would impose would necessarily be secondary to the river purification authorities' primary duty to promote the cleanliness of rivers, conserve water resources-and generally to control water pollution. As such, I suggest that they would amount to a general principle rather than a duty which could be executed meaningfully. It is really beyond the role and functions of river purification authorities to have imposed on them by statute an absolute duty to conserve and enhance the amenity of rivers and other waters. River purification authorities, unlike their present counterparts in England and Wales—the water authorities—or the new National Rivers Authority, have no direct responsibility for navigation, recreation or conservation. The

1377
underlying breadth of these functions would present a major extension to the duties of the river purification authorities, with all that that might imply in manpower resources and funding.
In Scotland, the Nature Conservancy Council is the body responsible for the natural amenity of land and waters, and it is proper that that duty should remain with the council. The Government have no reason to seek to remove that responsibility wholly or in part from the council in Scotland and it is not a duty which sits well with the river purification authorities as presently constituted.
In any event, the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 already requires all public bodies, which include river purification authoritities, in exercising their functions relating to land to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. The Government have been very well aware of what that implies. Some years ago the Secretary of State wrote to river purification authorities encouraging them in carrying out their functions to further, rather than just have regard to, the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora and fauna and other natural features of special interest, and to consult with the council on matters of importance. There is no evidence that that request has not been heeded. River purification authorities have a good record of consulting with appropriate interests and we understand that the council is similarly enthusiastic about keeping river purification authorities informed of relevant developments.
The other aspect of the amendment relates to the duty of promoting the conservation of flora and fauna dependent on an aquatic environment. I believe that the existing provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which are re-enacted and strengthened in the Bill achieve that objective. For example, Section 37(2) of Schedule 23 gives the Secretary of State power to direct river purification authorities to revoke a consent to discharge into controlled waters, to modify any conditions attached to that consent or to make the consent subject to conditions—all for the express purpose of protecting flora and fauna dependent on an aquatic environment. There is a related provision at Section 38(3) for compensation to be paid where the need for the changes I referred to in connection with Section 37 ought to have been foreseen when the consent was first granted or reviewed.
There is therefore a presumption that river purification authorities will seek to protect flora and fauna when considering applications for consent to discharge into controlled waters. Further, Section 46(1)(b) gives the river purification authorities power to undertake such works as appear to the authority to be necessary to remedy or forestall the pollution of controlled waters. The river purification authorities are also empowered in such circumstances to restore the flora and fauna dependent on the aquatic environment of the waters affected to their previous state.
River purification authorities and the Secretary of State are already acting in a responsible manner with regard to environmental matters. There are already
1378
sufficient and relevant powers and duties available to river purification authorities to meet the general aims of these amendments. We do not feel that there has been a good reason to cause us to want to alter these provisions or to add to them at this stage of the Bill.
If any further evidence were needed that river purification authorities were actively involved in conservation of the natural beauty of rivers, I need only refer to the Tidy Britain Group's award this year to the Forth River Purification Board for the successful "Clean Forth" campaign. The board was actively engaged in organising teams of young people to tidy up the banks of the River Forth and its environs which was part of a national campaign, and the success of its achievement is self-evident.
The Government are not unsympathetic to the general principle of my noble friend which is contained in the amendments. But we consider that they are not necessary and that adequate provisions are already available in the Bill and elsewhere. There is no evidence that these measures and the way in which they are carried out have been ineffective. Even if we agreed that the amendments were desirable—and for the reasons I have indicated we do not—this would not be an appropriate time, we believe, to make such changes without full consultation and consideration of the very clear implications which I have attempted to demonstrate.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote mentioned that river purification boards have many functions similar in scope to the new National Rivers Authority in England and Wales. The river purification boards do not have the same range of functions—as I have tried to demonstrate—as the NRA. The boards are almost solely responsible for the quality of water. They do not have any responsibility for other functions.
Having heard what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will realise that we are doing our very best in Scotland on matters of pollution and the environment, and take such matters very seriously. I hope that my explanation has given him food for thought.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation. Perhaps I may raise two points. I am not clear why the arrangements in Scotland for enhancement and protection of the environment should be different from those in England. Alternatively, is he saying there are as adequate powers for the enhancement and protection of the environment as there are in England?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, yes. As we have already understood in previous amendments, the law is different in England and Scotland. Between the Nature Conservancy Council and the powers that the river purification boards have we feel that the Secretary of State has acted in the interests of the environment up to now. We feel that that is the way to proceed in Scotland.

1379
I have to remind my noble friend that we are not dealing with a completely new situation in Scotland, as indeed is the case in England and Wales with this Bill.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his very full explanation. He gave a little hope by saying that he did not think that this was the right time to make these changes without further consultation with those involved. That gives a little hope that he might be prepared to carry out such consultation. He has put forward many fairly complex points—with aid and support from his office—which are difficult for amateurs like myself to deal with at a time like this. I should like to leave it that we shall consult together, perhaps after this debate, and if necessary bring forward a proposal at Third Reading to deal with this very important point on the basis that it is just as important in Scotland as in England to have provisions to protect and enhance the environment. That is the principle behind the amendment. I should like to consult the noble Lord later to see whether we can together agree something to achieve that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Schedule 23 [Control of Water Pollution in Scotland]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 303, line 46, leave out ("controlled") and insert ("inland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 156, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 157, 158, 172, 173 and 174. Amendment No. 156 substitutes "inland waters" for "a stream" in Section 4(4) of Part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. "Inland waters" most closely parallels the present term which of course will become obsolete when the new definitions of water in Section 30A come into force. A similar amendment has already been approved in Committee in respect of England and Wales.
Amendment No. 157 would get rid of an unnecessary subsection as the matter is already fully covered in Section 31C.
Amendment No. 158 effects a commonsense change in specifying the general aims which the Secretary of State must have when considering the levels of charges which a river purification authority makes for consents to discharges. A similar amendment has already been approved in Committee in respect of England and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 172 to 174 are simply drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will wish to accept these amendments for the reasons which my noble friend has given. But I think that we should note in passing that in Schedule 23 we are amending the primary law of Scotland in relation to control of pollution and we are doing so in 30
1380
pages. That follows 10 pages of amendment to the primary law of Scotland in Schedule 22 where we deal with water quality.
There is nothing in the Long Title of the Bill that warns us that there are these voluminous amendments to the law of Scotland in these two schedules. Perhaps it is a matter for consideration whether the Long Title should be amended in order to show that.
Having said that, and having drawn attention to the fact that these schedules normally only deal with matters of detail, we are to a very considerable extent amending the primary law of Scotland.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 seek to leave out Schedules 22 and 23. I feel that it is sometimes useful to people who have to read legislation to know that those two schedules are being included.
My main question relates to Amendment No. 157. New Section 31B in Schedule 23, to which Amendment No. 157 refers, seeks to leave out subsection (3)—fair enough. I am always pleased when pieces of legislation are left out. Would my noble friend try to persuade his colleagues on the Front Bench that they might leave out the same subsection (3) of Clause 111 on page 120 dealing with nitrate sensitive areas? The words are identical and if Scotland can do without them it would be nice if England could.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I take seriously the comments of my noble friend Lord Renton. I shall read what he said about the long schedules which have been presented to the House in respect of Scotland. I must consult with my colleagues on the Front Bench about the comments of my noble friend Lord Balfour. I have a feeling that the answer will be no, but I shall discuss the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 307, line 11, at end insert—

("Consultation and collaboration.

30E. In the performance of their functions in relation to waters partly in Scotland and partly in England river purification authorities shall, in matters of common interest, consult and collaborate with the National Rivers Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 156B. The amendments are aimed at the continuing existing measures for dealing with matters of common interest in respect of cross-Border rivers. Amendment No. 156A would in effect replace the consultation provisions presently available under the Border Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 which is to be repealed by the Bill. Amendment No. 156B will provide a defence against a charge of polluting Scottish waters if it happened as a result of discharge to which the National Rivers Authority has given a consent under the Bill. A corresponding provision for England and Wales is provided elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 156B:
Page 307, line 46, after ("1985;") insert—
("(iv) any consent given under Chapter I of Part III of the Water Act 1989;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 311, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 328, line 20, leave out ("need to ensure") and insert ("desirability of ensuring").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 158ZA:
Page 332, line 2, leave out from first ("on") to end of line 4 and insert ("—

(i) the river purification authority;

(ii) every local authority whose area includes the whole or any part of that locality; and

(iii) in the case of an order containing any such provision as is authorised by section 31B(4)(b) of this Act, such owners and occupiers of agricultural land in that locality as appear to the Secretary of State to be likely to be affected by the obligations in respect of which payments are to be made under that provision;

and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 158A and 158B. These provisions have already been approved for England and Wales by the House. It is appropriate that the same provisions are made for Scotland. They would ensure that those farmers and others directly affected by the terms of an order containing compulsory restrictions with entitlement to compensation would be sent details of the draft order direct. Amendments Nos. 158A and 158B would increase from 28 days to 42 days the period between publishing the draft order and finally making the order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 158A:
Page 332, line 18, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-two").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 158B:
Page 332, line 31, leave out ("twenty-eight") and insert ("forty-two").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 159ZA:
After Clause 169, insert the following new clause:

(" Work Environment fund and Advisory Body.

.—(1) The Director shall establish as soon as is practicable and in any event not later than six months from the transfer
1382
date, a Work Environment Fund for the purposes of funding and carrying out health and safety improvements for employees of water and sewerage undertakers.
(2) Each undertaker shall pay into the Fund a percentage of payroll costs which shall be determined by the Secretary of State and not exceed one per cent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall establish as soon as is practicable and not later than six months after the transfer date a National Water Health and Safety Advisory Body.
(4) Membership of the Advisory body shall consist of equal numbers of undertakers, trade union representatives of those employed by undertakers and the Authority and the Health and Safety Commission.
(5) The Advisory Body shall have the duty to research into and to promote the health, safety and welfare of the employees of the undertakers and the Authority.
(6) Nothing in the foregoing shall take the place of the duties of the Authority and undertakers under the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to establish a national work environment fund for the water industry which would provide an invaluable new initiative and structure to finance and administer necessary practical measures on health and safety at work throughout the industry. One aim of the fund would be to ensure that standards of health and safety at work for employees in the industry do not diminish as a result of privatisation. However, the broader aim is for far more than one which seeks to prohibit a deterioration in standards; namely, the development of a strategy to improve standards through a programme of action predicated upon a preventive approach to occupational health.
The WEF will be financed by a percentage of payroll costs and jointly controlled through the National Water Health and Safety Advisory Body. The payroll levy ensures that each undertaker contributes towards the fund on an equitable basis. No one undertaker would bear a disproportionate share of the costs contributing towards the fund. Joint control of the fund mirrors the tradition of tripartism practised as the British approach to regulating health and safety at work. Joint control ensures that the activities financed by the fund are the subject of negotiation between employer and employee representatives with the presence of Health and Safety Executive representatives to provide technical guidance and neutral expert opinion.
All separate undertakers within the water industry face similar responsibilities under health and safety laws, while correspondingly all employees (regardless of which undertaker employs them) face similar hazards at work. However, the fragmentation of the industry which will result from privatisation will undoubtedly evoke differing responses to common responsibilities and problems. The establishment of a WEF will therefore allow a co-ordinated strategy to be developed for regulating standards of health and safety for all employees throughout the industry.
If no such body exists to facilitate identification of common problems and to co-ordinate appropriate action to remedy these, then separate undertakers throughout the industry will be forced to carry out their own work on identifying causes and solutions to hazards. Some may not do this, or at least may do so less vigorously than others, resulting in differing

1383
standards throughout the industry. Those undertakers that do carry out such work would want to see the results of any investment on health and safety research used for the direct benefit of their own employees, and may keep the results to themselves. This is in fact the existing unsatisfactory pattern of research into occupational health matters throughout British industry as a whole, a pattern which results in considerable duplication of effort coupled with poor dissemination of the results of that research.
The establishment of a WEF would combat the fragmentation and lack of co-ordination which contributes towards lower standards of health and safety than are feasible.
There are a great many benefits which could accrue not only to the individuals who work in the industry, to the undertakers, but also to the nation. The model upon which such a fund could be based exists on a national level in Sweden. It is widely accepted that attention to the physical, chemical and psycho-social factors—and I shall try not to say that again—which determine the quality of the working environment is nowhere more comprehensive than in Sweden. Broadly speaking, standards of health and safety at work, quality of research into occupational health matters and improvements in working conditions are higher in Sweden than in any other industrialised country. The Swedish WEF, established in 1972, is acknowledged by employers, trade unions and the National Board of Occupational Safety and Health alike as having made a major contribution towards improving the work environment in all areas.
The activities of the fund are financed by means of a tax paid by all employers. The fund in Sweden does not engage in research itself, its main task being to finance projects aimed at research and development, training and information.
More than 200 projects have been funded since 1972. A water industry WEF could reliably be anticipated to contribute towards achieving standards of employee welfare and an awareness among both management and staff of health and safety issues similar to those that the Swedish model has engendered. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of the proposed new clause would be to required, first, that the director set up a water environment fund into which water and sewerage undertakers would pay a percentage of payroll costs; and, secondly, that the Secretary of State should set up a national water health and safety advisory body to research into and provide for the health, safety and welfare of employees of the water and sewerage undertakers and the National Rivers Authority. I do not consider it is necessary to make statutory provision for either a fund or an advisory body, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, proposes. Privatisation of the water authorities is intended to free the successor companies as far as possible to manage their affairs in the same way as any other company in the private sector. The health and safety needs of the water industry are already well catered for and I see no
1384
reason why this should not continue without the need to set up an advisory body. The proposed new clause is a recipe for confusion. Paragraphs (3) to (5) almost guarantee that the sixth will not be complied with. Dual responsibility is seldom as effective as clean-cut single responsibility because of the danger of passing the buck.
The Health and Safety at Work Act already establishes duties and responsibilities. There is no need to establish more duties in the water industry. Where an industry, for example the construction industry, has greater problems than others, then an advisory committee may be set up by the Health and Safety Commission. However, where there are good joint committees it is unlikely that this would prove necessary.
I do not dispute the sense of having some means of co-ordinating water and sewerage industry issues. The Health and Safety Executive encourages joint employee and employer committees to pool technical advice on health and safety problems. The national health and safety forum carries out such a function for the water industry. These committees are voluntary and there is no reason why the water authorities' successor companies should not make similar arrangements. Additionally the training centre, known as Water Training, is able to carry out its services through the support of the water industry and will continue to do so after privatisation. Water Training provides training courses specifically on health and safety. Proper training and equipment address the problems of work in confined spaces or in trenches, complicated electrical work, handling chemicals and good sanitary practice for water-borne diseases, which are the most hazardous aspect of water and sewerage work. The industry has a good record.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will not see fit to press this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this all sounds wonderful, and if that is so I wonder why the employees in the industry are asking those of us on this side of the House to put forward this proposal.
Of course they have a vested interest in this matter. They are concerned about their health and safety and about the knowledge that they have. I do not dispute that there are good employers and that they enjoy good relations. I think that the Minister failed to undertstand what I have said in support of this amendment. This is not an ambulance service; it is not something to make sure that things do not happen; its prime function is to develop a positive strategy to improve standards through a programme of action predicated upon a preventive approach to occupational health.
The Government are setting employers free under the guise of deregulation. The Minister knows that many employers will not carry out minimum standards and functions to protect their employees. They will not carry out proper consumer standards. One only has to look at the training initiatives introduced by the Government. They are going to abolish industrial training boards and give back to employers the freedom to decide how much training they are going to do.

1385
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply because I think that this situation calls for a more sympathetic response. It is quite clear that the Minister is not prepared to impose this minimum responsibility on the undertakers to carry out that which is contained in this new clause.
If the Minister said that this was a matter that could be considered, I believe that the employees in the industry who are primarily the concern of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers' Union—a union with a fine record of forward thinking in the strategy of protecting its members—would have been satisfied that the case had been made. It is clear that by promoting this new clause the union believes that there is a job to be done. The Minister or those who advise him do not think so. There is little point in pursuing the matter at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 170 [Indemnities in respect of fluoridation]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 159ZB:
Page 170, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it will almost certainly be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendment No. 159ZC for which Amendment No. 159ZB is merely a paving amendment. Perhaps I may remind the House that the Government introduced the controversial Clause 170 just before four o'clock in the morning on the final day of the Committee stage and shortly before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess.
My noble friend Lord Baldwin of Bewdley made a pungent and telling criticism of the new clause, but inevitably at that particular hour there were not many Members of the Committee present to hear him. One must remember that the new clause has never been submitted to the scrutiny of the other place. There are those who have argued that the provisions of the new clause are not necessarily as profligate in disbursing taxpayers' money to private companies as would appear from a superficial glance at the clause, since the consent of the Treasury will be needed before any moneys can be disbursed. There is no guarantee that such consent will ever be forthcoming.
That argument is a perfectly valid one and explains why a sword of Damocles must lie over the flotation of the new plcs, since investors cannot be sure whether or not the companies in which they are invited to invest will or will not be called upon at any time in the future to meet claims as regards fluoridation. Let us assume for the sake of argument that some indemnity reassuring to potential investors can effectively be given. It surely would be utterly wrong if the taxpayers' potential burden were to extend to paying for acts of negligence on the part of the statutory undertaker which led to the kind of extremely dangerous overdose that we experienced at Camelford not so long ago, notwithstanding that the incident involved aluminium rather than fluorides.
It is just such a potential burden on the taxpayer that this pair of amendments is designed to prevent. The Secretary of State has no powers and seeks no powers to indemnify the private pharmaceutical industry for liabilities arising out of the supply of medicinal products and costs incurred in connection with any proceedings brought by any person with respect to the supply of medical products.
According to my noble and learned friend Lord Jauncey, in his famous 1983 Strathclyde judgment, fluoride is indeed a medicine. Opinions vary as to whether it does any good or not in small doses, and I shall come to that point later. I believe that even the most ardent fluoridationists will concede that it is harmful in excessive doses, just as excessive doses of, for example, aspirin, antibiotics, tranquillisers or sleeping pills are harmful.
One understands that to date no overdosing incidents have, thankfully, occurred in the United Kingdom as regards fluoride. But elsewhere in the world several overdosing accidents have occurred, unhappily, resulting in deaths and severe disablement of consumers of fluoridated water. This is something which the privatised companies should lean over backwards to avoid at all costs. But tragic accidents do unfortunately occur from time to time, against which privatised companies should insure at their own expense without relying on the crutch of the taxpayer. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whatever the other virtues of the amendment may be, it is, alas, inconsistent with what has gone before in Clause 170. Subsection (1) says:
"The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury"—
which I regard as quite unnecessary—
"agree to indemnify any statutory water undertaker in respect of"—
and I go straight to the point—
"liabilities incurred by the undertaker in connection with anything done"—
those are the operative words—
"by the undertaker for the purpose of increasing the fluoride content of any water supplied by the undertaker".
If we were to accept the amendment we would be introducing an inherent contradiction into the clause.
In any event I must confess that I do not see the practicality of the case put forward with great sincerity by the noble Lord. Fluoridation is not done on a massive scale. It has been done by a number of water companies and water authorities on a scale which has been accepted by the public and by Parliament. For the most part it has been accepted as being beneficial. It is hard to imagine that in practice any truly excessive fluoridation is ever likely to occur.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I spoke briefly on this matter in Committee. As that was, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, at an unearthly hour, I was extremely brief and possibly slightly sharp with the noble Earl, for which I now apologise. I think I was unduly sharp in making my comments.

1387
Although there are arguments with regard to the consequences of excess fluoride—it would have to be excess fluoride—on the whole it has been regarded as being beneficial from the point of view of so-called dental care, particularly in younger children. To say that a substance added at one part in a million is not harmful but when given in an overdose is harmful is absolutely obvious. The example of Camelford was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but the quantity of aluminium put into the water in that case was horrendously large.
It is not strictly true to say that the Government never take liability with regard to other medicinal compounds. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, discussion is now going on where the Government are liable to take on considerable liability for indemnity with regard to pharmaceutical products, medical activities and so on. This has arisen simply because of the enormous costs, charges and damages that are being awarded by the courts in matters involving medicinal compounds, medical activities and so on. They are not necessarily even due to any form of negligence but to the natural state of chance that arises in these circumstances. It is therefore quite possible that considerable damages or consequences could ensue if it is the Government's wish to promote in the interests of some form of preventive health the fluoridation of water to a minor degree—the one part in a million which they are now advocating as the best but lowest level.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He said that there have been problems with regard to excessive fluoride. However, it must be very excessive fluoride. For example, there are those who take it as a form of treatment for bone disease; indeed, it has been prescribed as a medicinal compound. I should add that I do not believe that it has proved to be very effective; but nonetheless, in such circumstances, it has been prescribed in vastly greater amounts without necessarily causing much trouble, if not producing much benefit.
However, be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the Government have taken the line that on balance—I do not argue with noble Lords about every single detail as regards fluoride—this has a beneficial consequence. Therefore, it is only proper that they should say, "If we as a government argue this case, we intend to take some action to protect people from the consequences of what we have decided upon." That is, not what a plc has decided but what the Government have decided.
My noble friend Lord Renton pointed out some aspects of the clause. I do not disagree with what he said about any action taken regarding the consequent fluoridisation of water, and so on. I am sure that this is a matter which my noble friend on the Front Bench has taken on board. However, I should just like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, one or two defects in the amendment.
I suggest that if it is a question of balance, then the balance of probabilities and the balance of preventive health care would suggest to me that fluoridisation is in our favour and remains so, subject to any further research discoveries or
1388
evidence. If that is what we wish to encourage, then that is something the consequences of which we should be prepared to look carefully upon.
11 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as I spoke briefly on this matter during the last stage of the Bill, I rise simply to support my noble friend Lord Trafford. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Colwyn is not in his place this evening; but I should like to reiterate what my noble friend just said. However, we have debated this subject at length many times in the past, and I think therefore that it is a matter which should be left alone.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment. I must say, irrespective of what government policy may be overall in relation to the addition of fluoride to water supplies, that I find it almost inconceivable that a government should give to a private undertaking an absolute and ongoing commitment to indemnify a private firm and its staff in relation to the overproduction of a poisonous element added to the water supplies.
As I read it, the new clause says to the water undertakings that because it is government policy that fluoride should be added to water supplies, "We will indemnify you no matter what you do. It does not matter if one of your employees"—as one did in Camelford—"tips gallons of fluoride into the water supply and you are sued for millions of pounds by people whose health may be damaged. We will indemnify you against such an occurrence." That seems to me to be taking matters much too far; indeed, it is an encouragement for the private water undertakers to be less careful than they otherwise would be had they to meet the cost of damages themselves or through an insurance indemnity.
I think that the matter is probably even worse than that because there is no unanimity among the population of this country—nor indeed is there among doctors and dentists in this country and abroad—as to the beneficial effects of added fluoride to water. By extending that indemnity to private firms, the Government are going much too far. The modest amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asks the Government to give pause, and I support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I intervene only because of the intervention of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon who is to be admired for his tenacity and clarity. The Labour Party has in recent years been surfacing from a surfeit of doctrinal disputes, and I want to make it clear that this is not a matter on which the Labour Party takes a party view. Anything that my noble friend and I say from these Benches is said in a personal capacity and not as a representative of the Labour Party.
I happen to disagree with my noble friend. I happen to have been convinced during the many years that I spent in local government debating these issues with almost monotonous regularity that the arguments for fluoridation in water are strong. I have also been convinced of that from the experience

1389
of my family. I therefore do not support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I hope that the Government will resist it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I like to believe that my teeth might have benefited.
The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the Secretary of State for Health indemnifying water undertakers against costs or damages imposed on them as a result of proceedings brought against them where the flouride content of the water supplied by them had been increased in excess of the prescribed level. At the outset I should like to stress that the Government, on the basis of some 40 years' experience in the USA and 30 years in this country, are quite satisfied as to the safety of fluoridation.
The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 prescribes that when requested so to do by health authorities water undertakers may increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by them. Any arrangements made by the water undertakers should secure that the concentration of fluoride in the water supplied to consumers shall as far as reasonably practicable be maintained at one milligram per litre.
One part per million is the optimal fluoride content of the water supply. It is certainly not the upper limit for safety and there is no reason therefore why from time to time supplies should not have a fluoride content of slightly more than that with absolutely no danger to health.
Technical advice on the levels of fluoride permissible in supplies is provided by the Department of the Environment's Standing Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality. Those provide strict limits between which the fluoride content of a fluoridated supply can vary, providing in particular that the average fluoride content of the supply in any calendar month should be between 0·9 and 1·1 milligrams per litre and that the fluoride content of the supply should never exceed 1·5 milligrams per litre. That leaves a very wide margin of safety and is consistent with the World Health Organisation's recommendations and the EC directives relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption.
Since fluoridation began in the United Kingdom it has been the policy of health ministers to indemnify water undertakers against possible damages arising on the grounds of safety. What we are proposing is no extension to private companies; merely a continuation of a practice. It is the Department of Health, and not the water undertakers, which has the overall responsibility for giving assurances on the overall safety aspect. Water authorities are of course responsible for maintaining the safety of individual fluoridation plants and have an excellent record in that respect. These indemnities are necessary to protect the interests of water undertakers and thereby encourage them to accede to requests from health authorities. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I must of course yield to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in matters of drafting,
1390
but I must say that I thought that my paving amendment provided for the one exception. I shall return to that point in a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, doubted whether truly excessive fluoridation was ever likely to occur. It has occurred, albeit not, thank goodness, in the United Kingdom. We could have a Camelford, with fluoride rather than aluminium. I hope not, but it could happen.
What I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, and the Government in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, have missed, is that the amendment would come into play only if a court found that the statutory water undertaker had been negligent to the extent that a really massive overdose had been inserted into the water supply. I guess, in fact I am certain, that a slight overdose would never come into this category: a mere 50 per cent. overdose would not come into the matter at all.
I should like the Government to examine the matter again. I do not like Clause 170; I admit that freely. But I am not trying to insert a wrecking amendment into the clause. I have accepted it. What I wish to do is to exclude negligence on the part of the statutory water undertaker: I do not see why the taxpayer should pay for negligence. It is something which the undertaker should insure against and pay for out of his gross profits.
The noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, thinks that the subject should be left alone, on the grounds that it has been discussed before. That is a curious way of looking at legislation. Knowledge advances —scientific knowledge and every other sort of knowledge—and what may not be evident to somebody in 1985 might appear quite differently in 1990. Therefore I cannot accept that advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, got to the heart of the matter. I do not feel that the Government have really grasped what the amendment is all about. There is always a temptation to say that in view of the lateness of the hour, we shall not divide the House. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, I had overlooked his paving amendment; he is quite right.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. In view of the thinness of the House—it will of course be thin the next time round as well because Clause 170 appears towards the end of the Bill—I should like to study what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said in relation to one particular aspect and I should also like the Government to think again about their interpretation of my amendment, bearing in mind that it can only have effect if the court were to prove negligence on the part of an undertaker. Reserving the right to come back again at the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159ZC not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 159ZD:
Page 171, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of the period of five years from the passing of this Act the provisions of this section shall expire unless their continuation in force has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that both Houses of Paliament should have the opportunity to review this controversial clause, Clause 170, after five years from the passing of the Act. They can then decide whether or not they wish its provisions to remain in force. I say "controversial" because, as I mentioned in speaking to the previous amendment, a very large liability is placed on the shoulders of the taxpayer in respect of privately-owned companies, as opposed to the nationalised or quasi-nationalised ones.
I believe that there are three reasons why Parliament is likely to wish to review the matter in due course, quite apart from the open-ended potential liability of the taxpayer. The first is cost effectiveness. When we last debated fluoridation at any length three or four years ago, I do not think that there were the statistics from the United States which have recently appeared, covering a very long period. It is a thorough piece of research spanning 17 years, studying 28 areas which were fluoridated compared with 29 which were not fluoridated. The average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth in the first group was 1·96, and in the second group. 1·99. It was statistically so small as to make no difference at all.
Even those dentists and doctors who are reluctant to accept the evidence of the survey and still believe in the efficacy of fluoride are beginning in some cases to have doubts about whether the unselective—I think that is the word to use—method of fluoridating the public water supply is the most cost effective way of going about it.
I have in front of me a letter from an eminent dentist, writing from what estate agents would describe as a prestigious address in London W1. The dentist states that:
"The crowns of all the permanent teeth, apart from the wisdom teeth are formed by the time the child is six years old, and after this time the ingestion of fluoride can have no beneficial effects whatsoever.".
The dentist goes on to recommend pills and fluoridated toothpaste, but ends up by stating that:
"It is a waste of resources apart from the possible health hazard to fluoridate water".
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who is not here would disagree with him. Professional people often disagree—and who can tell which eminent dentist is right in this matter? Well over 90 per cent. of the population is of course over the age of six. None of these approximately 50 million people can benefit from fluoridated water. On the contrary, they may well be harmed to some degree. That brings me to the second reason for this amendment.
Unlike myself, the Government and indeed all the Opposition parties are committed to a much greater degree of harmonisation with our partners in the European Community. However, the great majority
1392
of the EC countries—over 75 per cent. of them—abhor fluoridation, having studied the matter in detail. Is it not likely that we shall soon have to fall into line with our partners if EC harmonisation on environmental matters is to be taken to its logical conclusion? By European countries, I refer not only to EC countries but also the health-conscious Scandinavian countries of Norway and Sweden which are not in the Community. Their suspicion of fluoride is based on sound, empirical reasoning, which leads me to the third reason for this amendment.
The pace of medical research is such that all kinds of products, medical and non-medical, which were thought to be perfectly safe, and indeed beneficial as recently as 10, 12 or 15 years ago are now revealed to be very far from safe. One immediately thinks of thalidomide, although perhaps that is an unfair comparison to make. A better comparison is asbestos. One can remember when asbestos was considered to be God's gift to mankind. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will know as well as anyone that farm buildings and light industrial buildings were constructed from asbestos during the 1960s and even later. Asbestos was also used widely in domestic houses: I remember the asbestos mats on which kettles simmered. Look at the way we regard asbestos now!
A few years ago the concept of cholesterol in meat fat and butter meant nothing to people. Cigarettes and alcohol were universally accepted; and tranquillisers were prescribed in massive doses 10 or 12 years ago without any regard to the consequences. Now of course doctors have recognised the consequences and have put a very heavy brake on prescribing them. All the things I have mentioned were once considered either harmless, or, at worst, very mildly harmful. How times change! I think it more than likely that the professional perception of fluoridation may well also change in the next few years. For that reason, I urge the House to consider the amendment seriously. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I support this amendment because I believe the time is coming, as it has come in other countries, when there will be a reappraisal of the effects of fluoride in drinking water. The subject, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will not go away.
One reason for this is that the evidence for its harmful effects cannot go on being overlooked for ever. I would particularly commend in this regard a long and thoughtful article in the American Chemical and Engineering News of 1st August 1988. One or two short quotations from this will illustrate what I mean. I quote:
"The Washington Bureau editor of…the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry wrote last year that supporters of fluoridation have had an 'unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light', and that organised dentistry has lost 'its objectivity—the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion'.".
The professor of environmental medicine at Odense university in Denmark, writing of a World

1393
Health Organisation study on fluorine and fluorides, said:
"information which could cast any doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements was left out by the Task Group. Unless I had been present myself I would have found it hard to believe".
A scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency reports how:
"The scientific assessment of fluoride's health risks written by the Agency in 1985 omits 90% of the literature on mutagenicity, most of which suggests fluoride is a mutagen".
Examples are given of how articles have been refused for publication because:
"the opposition to fluoridation has become virulent again",
or
"this is a sensitive subject and any publication in this area is subject to interpretation by antifluoridation groups".
One has to remind oneself that this reasoning comes from editors of academic and professional journals. From popular newspapers one could understand a political approach of this kind.
An American graduate student in the 1970s did his Ph.D. thesis on the fluoridation controversy. His conclusion was:
"that the vast majority of the reviews of the literature were designed to promote fluoridation, not to examine evidence objectively".
Let me give one final quotation, from a leading United States public health officer at a meeting of state dental directors as long ago as 1951, when fluoride research had hardly begun:
"If it is a fact that some individuals are against fluoridation, you just have to knock their objections down. The question of toxicity is of the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. 'We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay', you say, and go on".
The same officer later wrote:
"The minute doubt is created in the minds of the public, any public health program is doomed to failure".
I think that that last statement is deeply significant for the whole debate when one considers the absolute nature of many of the claims for fluoride. The reasons why the whole issue became a campaign from the start, rather than a proper scientific inquiry, are of great interest in themselves though there is no time for them here. I should add that I believe that the motives were, by and large, of the best.
But times are changing. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke of the history of other substances once thought safe and endorsed as such by scientific bodies. I agree entirely with what he said and have made the same points myself in speeches on environmental matters. Other countries such as France, Germany, and Denmark have decided that the risks of fluoride are too great. There is a mood in this country which is now gathering pace in which people are no longer prepared to see their air, food and water treated with doubtful substances. I believe that the Government would do well to heed that mood, and the increasingly solid evidence on which it is based.
Lord Craigmyle: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely correct. That mood concerning food, air and water is becoming very strong. I believe that he and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, should be supported, particularly on the aspect of the question which
1394
touches on harmonisation with other countries in Europe. That is why I added my name to the amendment.
I should like to add one point to what has been said on this subject. If one reads the writings for and against fluoridation one will see that those in favour of fluoridation all date from some time ago. The great majority of the more recent writings, dating from within the past 10 or 15 years, are against fluoride. It is quite possible that in the next few years there may be a considerable swing of public opinion against it and, unless this amendment or something very like it is agreed, we may find ourselves saddled with something that it would need a new Act of Parliament to change.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I believe that at this stage we should remember that the reason why it was chosen to add fluoride to water was that water was not protected by the food and drugs Acts in the same way as other products which we consume.
I have always felt that water was perhaps not the right medium because, after all, we consume only about 10 per cent. of the water that we use. But, to add fluoride to something like milk, of which we consume about 90 per cent. of the amount that we use, would not be permitted by law.
Otherwise, I think that the Government should exercise some caution before taking on board many of the appeals that are made today, for example, against the consumption of sodium nitrate. None of us has suffered any harm from eating salt meat, and most of my noble friends have eaten it. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as I am concerned, there is no situation that whisky does not improve!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment—I shall not go into the arguments for or against fluoridation—simply because it is so logical. Let us see what it says. It states that:
"At the end of the period of five years from the passing of this Act the provisions of this section shall expire unless their continuation in force has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
How reasonable that is! We are asking Parliament—because it is after all Parliament—to give an indemnity to a group of private firms on a specific issue. Is it therefore unreasonable—I do not think that it is—that the taxpayer, through Parliament, should be asked every five years, or at the end of the period of five years, whether he wishes to continue that indemnity? I can hardly believe that any Member of this House or another place would consider that to be so unreasonable that he would wish to vote against it. I therefore hope that the Minister, when he replies, will be able to agree with me that the amendment is so eminently reasonable that even he will accept it.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to terminate any agreement made by the Secretary of State for Health to indemnify water undertakers against any costs or damages arising from claims that the addition of fluoride to water has caused injury or death to any person at the end of a period of five years from the

1395
coming into force of the Act unless it was renewed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Fluoridation benefits teeth throughout the years of their formation. The process takes from birth until children are about 14. The benefits of fluoridation are therefore long-term, and decisions on schemes should be taken in the knowledge of that fact.
The model contract that forms the basis of the agreement between health authorities and water undertakers regarding the fluoridation of water supplies recognises the long-term nature of the effect of fluoridation and recommends that the agreement should remain in force for at least 15 years. Water undertakers would find it impossible to accede to the request, should the period be reduced to five years. In the light of that consideration, we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, once again I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Baldwin of Bewdley has once again produced some detailed and devastating evidence in support of my contention. I am also grateful to noble Lords on the Government Back-Benches who spoke in support. I am heartened by the support from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He knows the House of Commons in a way that I never can. He seems to think that the amendment would be welcomed by the other place.
The support that I have received for the amendment has been unanimous, with the exception of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who I did not think understood the amendment. I argue that the pace of advance in medical knowledge is such that it is only a matter of time, I suspect, before fluoridation is found to be as harmful as asbestos or tobacco, for example.
When considering what to do about the last amendment, I thought that it was better to——
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am grateful to him. I think that it is important to say that our silence does not necessarily mean assent.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I entirely accept that. It is for that reason that, in contrast to the last amendment, I believe that it might be useful to test the opinion of the House, at least in the verbal sense if not in a way that involves any pedestrian movement. Therefore I do not intend to withdraw this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
11.30 p.m.
Clause 181 [General financial provisions]:
Lord Trafford Lord Trafford moved Amendment No. 159ZE:
Leave out Clause 181.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we move miles from the issue of fluoridation. Clause 181 is a technical clause which
1396
is often seen in legislation. As can be seen on the face of the Bill, it is headed "Financial provisions".
The real purpose of this amendment is to seek an assurance. Noble Lords may remember that at Committee stage I spoke on a proposal (which I think at the time was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport) for a water development fund. At that time the noble Lord spoke about the case for a perpetual annual subsidy to deal with the need to improve drinking water quality and to reduce the pollution of rivers and beaches. I understood that the preferable alternative was a restructuring of capital on the lines outlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness, who earlier had explained how the water authorities' national loans fund debt would be written off in the run up to privatisation and how new capital structures would be put in place which were appropriate for water and sewerage services plcs. The government amendments on land which we debated last week are also relevant in that connection.
My purpose in tabling this amendment reflects my worry whether this Bill in fact gives the Secretary of State sufficient flexibility in setting up appropriate capital structures for each of the 10 water authorities. It occurs to me that writing off the national loans fund debt might not be sufficient in every case, given the different combination of obligations, required investment programmes and debt for each authority.
It seems to me that before the Report stage of the Bill is completed the House should satisfy itself that everything is in place for a successful flotation of all the authorities. The purpose of this amendment is to seek such an assurance. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trafford asks for an assurance. Obviously I should like to read with care what he has said before I give that assurance, particularly at this hour of the night. However, let me confirm to him that there is already a great deal of flexibility in Chapter V of Part II of the Bill.
My noble friend asks me to look again at this point to make certain that what I said in Committee is permitted by the Bill. Let me say to him that I give that assurance to him unreservedly. We are always keen to make sure that a Bill works. If we can perhaps meet between now and another stage to analyse his concerns, I hope that that will satisfy him. If not, we can come back at a later stage.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend for that answer. I think that it goes a very long way to produce the assurance which was the purpose of this amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 24 [Procedure relating to Byelaws]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 159A:
Page 338, line 22, after ("authorities") insert (", water undertakers or sewerage undertakers").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I accept that my amendment in Committee suggesting that by-laws regulating activities in controlled waters

1397
should extend to reservoirs was rejected. However, I am still slightly uneasy about the NRA having the power to prohibit and in particular regulate polluting activities in a water undertaker's reservoir without even giving notice to the water and sewerage undertakers. That is all that my amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, when we debated Amendment No. 376ZA at Committee stage we touched on the rights of water and sewerage undertakers to be notified of proposed by-laws applying to their reservoirs and so on. I am happy to say that we support this amendment in spirit.
Unfortunately, we believe that the drafting is defective in that in some circumstances water undertakers would have to notify themselves. I undertake that we shall come forward with a suitable formulation at Third Reading.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 187 [General interpretation]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 182, line 17, leave out ("in relation to sewage, includes treatment") and insert—

("(a) in relation to land or any interest or right in or over land, includes the creation of such an interest or right and a disposal effected by means of the surrender or other termination of any such interest or right; and

(b) in relation to sewage, includes treatment; and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 183, line 42, at end insert—
(" "protected land", in relation to a company holding an appointment under Chapter I of Part II of this Act, means any land which, or any interest or right in or over which—

(a) was transferred to that company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act or, where that company is a statutory water company, is or was held by that company at any time during the financial year current on the transfer date;

(b) is or has at any time on or after the transfer date been held by that company for purposes connected with the carrying out of its functions as a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker (including any functions which for the purposes for which section 186 above has effect are taken to be such functions by virtue of subsection (6) or (7) of that section); or

(c) has been transferred to that company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 5 to this Act from another company in relation to which that land was protected land when the other company held an appointment under that Chapter.").

[Amendments Nos. 161A to 161D, as amendments to Amendment No. 161, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 161 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 161E and 161F not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 161G:
Page 186, line 19, at end insert—
("(7A) For the purposes of this Act references to the payment of compensation shall be assumed to include the payment of
1398
interest on the amount of compensation due from the date of the injury or damage from which the claim arises at such a rate as may be from time to time prescribed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of this amendment is simple and straightforward. Effectively if there is to be compensation resulting from injury or damage payable by the water authorities, interest should be paid on the sum in question between the time at which the damage is caused and the time by which, for instance, the payment is settled. That would be relevant at a time of high inflation or high interest rates as the potential loss might be considerable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Part IV of the Bill includes various provisions under which the National Rivers Authority, water undertakers and sewerage undertakers may compulsorily acquire ownership of or rights over land. The owners of such land are compensated under the terms of the compensation code. In the case of compulsory purchases under Clause 150, and also the acquisition of interests in or rights over land under Clause 153, the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 are applied by Schedules 18 and 20 respectively. Among other things these provisions give the landowner the right both to an advance of compensation prior to the final amount being settled and to interest, on any compensation which has not been advanced, from the date on which the claim arises and the date on which the final payment of compensation is made.
The position is different where compensation is payable under paragraph 6 of Schedule 19 following the vesting of rights in the undertaker under Clause 151. These provisions re-enact provisions in the Public Health Act 1936 and follow that Act in not providing for interest.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government issued a consultation paper on 7th March which reviewed various aspects of compensation and which proposed that there should be an extension of the entitlement to interest on compensation. In particular I refer your Lordships to paragraph 18. We are now considering the responses to that consultation paper. If, as I expect, it is decided to extend the payment of interest on compensation as proposed in the consultation paper, it would be our intention to bring forward legislation to meet this and other aspects of compensation at an early opportunity. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, could not expect me to go any further tonight. But I hope that he will be reassured by what I have been able to say to him.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister's response was helpful. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 162 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 188 [Amendments, transitional provisions, savings and repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 186, line 37, at end insert ("; and, without prejudice to any power conferred by any other provision of this Act, the Secretary of State and the Minister shall each have power by regulations to make such additional consequential amendments—

(a) of public general enactments not mentioned in that Schedule but passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act; and

(b) of subordinate legislation made before the passing of this Act,

as he considers necessary or expedient by reason of the coming into force of any provision of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide a little flexibility to allow statutes to be got absolutely right where in the Bill we may have missed any necessary consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 338, line 41, leave out ("(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 165 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 165ZA:
Page 338, leave out lines 43 to 49 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "any spring, well, borehole or adit, the water from" there shall be substituted the words "the water in any waterworks"; and

(ii) for the words "any such spring, well, borehole or adit" there shall be substituted the words "the water in any waterworks";

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from the beginning to "adit", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Any person authorised for the purpose by any local authority or water undertaker within whose area any such waterworks are situated, or by any water undertaker which takes water from any such waterworks, shall, on producing some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a right at all reasonable hours to enter any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any contravention of this section in relation to those waterworks";

(c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall entitle any person authorised for the purposes of that subsection by a local authority to have access to any waterworks belonging to a water undertaker.";
and

(d) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4) In this section "waterworks" includes—

(a) any spring, well, adit, borehole, service reservoir or tank; and

(b) any main or other pipe or conduit of a water undertaker.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 165A:
Page 351, line 37, at end insert—
("In section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (determination of applications) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A)(a) Before granting planning permission for any development which is likely to give rise to a need for the provision of significant water or sewerage service a local planning authority shall consult the relevant water undertaker and the relevant sewerage undertaker.
(b) A local planning authority shall liaise with the relevant water undertaker and the relevant sewerage undertaker and agree the categories of planning application falling within the duty to consult contained in the sub-paragraph (1) above.
(c) Where under this subsection a local planning authority are required to consult a relevant water undertaker or a relevant sewerage undertaker before granting planning permission—

(i) they shall, unless an applicant has served a copy of an application for planning permission on the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker, give notice of the application to the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker; and

(ii) they shall not determine the application until at least 14 days after the date on which notice is given under paragraph (i), or if earlier, 14 days after the date of service of a copy of the application on the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker by the applicant.

(d) The local planning authority shall, in determining the application, take into account any representation relating to the provision of water or sewerage services received from the relevant water undertaker and relevant sewerage undertaker.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to place local planning authorities under a statutory duty to consult water and sewerage undertakers before granting planning permission for any development which is likely to give rise to a need for the provision of significant water or sewerage services. I appreciate that the issue has been debated both in Committee and at Report stage. But that discussion has concentrated entirely on the view of the NRA. I am not convinced that planning consultation arising from the split of water authorities into the NRA and water and sewerage undertakers is fully resolved.
I raised the same issue in Committee. My noble friend Lord Caithness replied:
"Local planning authorities should decide how best to publicise and seek views on individual planning applications and should consult water and sewerage undertakers where that seems necessary".—[Official Report, 23/5/89; col. 375.]
However on 6th June the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, moved Amendment No. 36 which provided that:
"Functions relating to consultation with regard to planning and environmental assessment matters which prior to the transfer date were carried out by a water undertaker shall, from that date, be transferred to the Authority and no water or sewerage undertaker shall undertake such functions from that date".
In responding to that amendment my noble friend Lord Arran stated that the Government intended to amend the general development order to provide for the NRA alone to be consulted in all cases where water authorities are consulted at the moment. The point is that the general development order, as presently drafted, provides only for consultation with water authorities in relation to functions which will transfer to the NRA. My amendment seeks additional categories of consultation in relation to

1401
development requiring significant water and sewerage services.
In summing up his Amendment No. 36, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated that he thought that what my noble friend Lord Arran had previously said
"left open the possibility that the plcs would also be consulted. He has now made it crystal clear that the functions, responsibilities and rights will be transferred only to the NRA and will not be retained in any way by the privatised plcs".—[Official Report, 6/6/89; cols. 827 and 829.]
My noble friend Lord Arran did not rebut what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on that occasion.
I am having some difficulty in reconciling what my noble friend Lord Arran and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on 6th June with what was said by my noble friend Lord Caithness in response to my own amendment on 23rd May. My noble friend said:
"Local planning authorities should … consult water and sewerage undertakers where that seems necessary".—[Official Report, 23/5/89; col. 375]
It seems only logical that water and sewerage undertakers should be consulted with respect to the availability of water and sewerage facilities. I understand the Opposition's concern that privatised water and sewerage undertakers may abuse the consultation system. However, the Government seem to have accepted that consultation is needed. If there are these concerns about possible abuse of the system surely the answer is to build safeguards into the mechanism so that the consultation process is not abused and consultation not denied. In responding to my earlier amendment in Committee the Government accepted that consultation is needed.
I have seen a copy of a letter from the Department of the Environment to water authorities dated 16th November 1988 containing policy letters on levels of service. One of the levels of service indicated is "replies to development control consultation". If there is to be no consultation why is the response time to it contained in this levels of service letter, which I imagine is to be used as a level of performance? The inclusion of that category in that letter suggests to me that the lack of consultee status for water and sewerage undertakers is merely an oversight.
In view of the apparent discrepancy between the response to my earlier amendment and the response to an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify the position. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred at some length to points I made in earlier debates. I want to make it clear that I did not accuse water undertakings of abuses. Our concern about the planning procedures was twofold. It is right that where planning applications are specifically affected by water or sewerage functions there should be some opportunity for the water and sewerage undertakers to be consulted, as any other interested party might be. Our concern was with the existing statutory rights of water authorities. That should not be carried forward to private companies. The reason for that was not only the theoretical
1402
reason of their being private but that they are also likely to be developers. If they start to have statutory consultee rights—to use the inelegant word used by the noble Baroness—there could be a conflict of interest which may be dangerous.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can only apologise to my noble friend Lady Blatch if I have sown confusion in her mind. It was not intentional and I assure her that there was no discrepancy between what my noble friend Lord Arran said and what I said on previous occasions.
For the sake of clarification, I repeat that in responding to Amendment No. 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, my noble friend Lord Arran explained that in order to maintain the present statutory position (the point just picked up by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh) we intend to amend Article 18 of the General Development Order to provide for the NRA to be consulted in all cases where water authorities are consulted at the moment.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are also required to have regard to the development plan for the area and to all other material considerations. In practice this often involves consultation with water authorities on an informal basis in particular where planning applications have a significant implication for water and sewerage services. I see no reason to think that these informal arrangements will not continue. The planning function is the responsibility of local planning authorities and the onus for deciding when a water and sewerage undertaker should be consulted must rest with them.
I believe that this is the most appropriate way of ensuring that water and sewerage undertakers are involved when necessary in the planning process. I am conscious of the considerable concern that has been expressed during debates on the Bill about any prospect of a formal role for water and sewerage undertakers in the planning process.
I hope that my noble friend is satisfied and no longer in doubt about the exact position which has been expressed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. Perhaps the confusion is all mine—I am not sure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Schedule 26 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 165B:
Page 370, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 165G. It was always the intention that it should be included in the grouping but it was omitted from the list.
These are technical amendments which make clear that criminal liabilities for offences committed before transfer date will remain with the water authorities. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 165BA not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 165BB:
Page 371, line 8, at end insert—
("6A where arrangements are made, varied or terminated under the provisions of this Schedule, the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1976 shall have effect.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return in a different form to an issue which we raised in Amendment No. 446B in Committee. The issue is contained in Schedule 26 which is concerned with transitional provisions with particular reference to sewerage undertakers.
We are concerned with the contrast between the protection given to the staff of the regional water authorities who are transferring to the new undertakings and the staff of the local authorities who have been engaged on an agency basis in sewerage work and whose jobs will end if the agency is not continued. Assurances have been given to the regional water authority staff that they will receive terms and conditions no less favourable than those they currently enjoy. In contrast, staff employed by local authorities who are offered transfer to the regional water authorities can expect only three months' protection of both salary and conditions. At the end of that period they will be offered new contracts. If they are as good as or better than the existing contracts that is all well and good and there need be no problem. However, if they are worse and unacceptable the staff are in effect receiving three months' notice which means a total of six months' protection.
It seems a matter of natural justice that the same protection for loss of employment and for loss of terms and conditions as favourable as those which have already been enjoyed should apply equally to local authority staff employed on an agency basis as to regional water authority staff being transferred to the new undertakings. This amendment is not intended to make them equal—we are not as ambitious as that. It is intended to provide some further protection in terms of the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfers and Protection) Order 1976. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would impose the provisions of the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfers and Protection) Order 1976 on any existing sewerage agency arrangements which were varied or terminated under paragraph 15 of Schedule 26. This order specifies, in some considerable detail, the terms on which staff would be transferred, if they are transferred on variation or termination of the arrangement.
We welcome a continuing role for local authorities as sewerage agents, and if they are providing a fully efficient and effective service I cannot see that they have any cause for concern, as I said earlier today. Even if undertakers do wish to terminate an arrangement they must give reasonable notice which cannot expire before 1st April 1992. In this way, we believe we have provided the conditions for a smooth transition to the new regime, without introducing any unnecessary rigidity. It is against
1404
this background that I would ask your Lordships to view this amendment.
Existing sewerage agency arrangements have been made by individual sewerage undertakers and local authorities within certain guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State. We understand that the vast majority if not all of current arrangements do provide that the 1976 order shall apply if the arrangement is varied or ended. For such arrangements, the provisions of sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 15 ensure that the order, and all other aspects of the arrangements, shall continue to apply after the coming into effect of the Water Bill. So for most if not all arrangements this amendment is simply irrelevant.
It may be that a few arrangements do not incorporate the provisions of the 1976 order. I would remind your Lordships that such an omission would be the result of a deliberate decision by the two parties involved; in other words, the local authority and the water undertaker. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that in such circumstances we would not wish to impose the provisions of the 1976 order on them. That is why I must ask your Lordships to resist this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to learn that in most cases the provisions of the 1976 order will be implemented and that, therefore, the object of this amendment will be achieved. However, I sometimes wonder whether the Government have really learned the lessons of the many changes which have taken place as a result of legislation, notably the abolition of one tier of local authority.
Experience has been that when an authority is to be abolished or, as in this case, an agency agreement is to be ended, even if it is to be two and a half years after the implementation of the Act, unless there is a firm assurance from the outset that the terms and conditions of service will be as good as they were in the past, your Lordships will find that what happens is this. The best staff leave and one ends up with an agency agreement which cannot be terminated before March 1992 and yet is difficult to fulfil because the best staff, seeing that they will not receive such good terms and conditions at the end of the day, naturally protect themselves and vote with their feet.
I believe that the Government should reflect on that, even if it is only in the minority of cases that the 1976 order is not honoured. However, on the basis that it is to be a minority of cases and that we should think again about what to do for that minority, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 165C:
Page 372, line 3, leave out from ("is") to end of line 4 and insert
("due to a water authority immediately before that date or would have become due to such an authority on or after that date in respect of a period ending no later than with the end of the financial year current on that date;
and such a charge shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme, be payable on or after that date to the person to whom the right to receive it is transferred in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which is important to the funding of the National Rivers Authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 165Dto 165G:
Page 376, line 20, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C) below,").
Page 376, line 35, at end insert—
("(2A) If the Secretary of State determines that this sub-paragraph is to apply in relation to any application which is deemed by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above to have been made by a successor company to the Authority—

(a) that application shall be treated as having been transmitted to the Secretary of State in accordance with a direction under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 to this Act; but

(b) the authority shall not be required, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph, to inform that company that the application is to be so treated.

(2B) Where an application is deemed to have been so made by a successor company, then, whether or not it is treated under sub-paragraph (2A) above as having been transmitted to the Secretary of State, the following provisions shall apply in relation to the application and, except in so far as the Secretary of State otherwise directs, shall so apply instead of paragraph 1(3) to (6) or 4(3) of Schedule 12 to this Act, that is to say—

(a) the application shall not be considered by the Secretary of State or the Authority unless the company has complied with such directions (if any) as may be given by the Secretary of State with respect to the publicity to be given to the application;

(b) the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Authority shall be under a duty to consider only such representations and objections with respect to the application as have been made in writing to the Secretary of State or the Authority before the end of such period as he may determine and as are not withdrawn; and

(c) the Secretary of State shall have power to direct the Authority, pending compliance with any direction under paragraph (a) above or pending his or, as the case may be, its consideration of the application, representations and objections, to give such a temporary consent under Chapter I of Part III of this Act, or to make such temporary modifications of the conditions of any existing consent, as may be specified in the direction;

and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with any direction given to it by virtue of this sub-paragraph.
(2C) The power of the Secretary of State to make a determination or give a direction under sub-paragraph (2A) or (2B) above shall be exercisable generally in relation to applications of any such description as he may consider appropriate (as well as in relation to a particular application) and, in the case of a direction to give a temporary consent or to make a temporary modification, shall include—

(a) power to require a temporary consent to be given either unconditionally or subject to such conditions falling within paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 12 to this Act as may be specified in the direction;

(b) power, where the direction relates to a description of applications, to require the temporary consent given in pursuance of the direction to be a general consent relating to cases of such a description as may be so specified; and

(c) power, where the direction is in respect of an application falling to be considered by the Authority, to require the consent or modification to be given or made so as to continue to have effect until the Authority's determination on the application becomes final—

(i) on the expiration, without the bringing of an appeal against the determination, of the prescribed period for the bringing of such an appeal; or

(ii) on the withdrawal or determination of any such appeal.".

Page 376, line 37, leave out ("such regulations") and insert ("regulations made under section 55 of that Act").
1406
Page 390, line 31, at end insert—

("Saving for criminal liability of water authorities

Nothing in this Act or in any scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act shall have the effect, in relation to any criminal liability of a water authority in respect of an offence committed before the transfer date, of transferring that liability to the Authority or to the water authority's successor company.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Paragraphs 21 to 28 of Schedule 26 provide the transitional provisions in respect of control of pollution from the current arrangements based on water authority functions and Control of Pollution Act powers to the new arrangements involving the NRA and the new powers in Part II, Chapter I of this Bill. These amendments would provide more flexible arrangements for transfer, in particular of consent applications submitted by the water authorities to the Secretary of State from the Secretary of State to the NRA at the appropriate stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 171:
Page 393, line 39, at end insert—

("3 & 4 Eliz. 2, C.13. The Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act 1955. Section 1(4)(a).").

Page 397, line 26, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 13, paragraph 3.").
Page 398, line 45, column 3, leave out ("Section 34(1) and (3).").
Page 398, line 51, column 3, leave out ("Part I of Schedule 6.").
Page 408, line 43, column 3, leave out ("(2)").
Page 408, line 46, column 3, leave out ("Part II of).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 189 [Local statutory provisions: consequential amendments etc.]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 171 A.
Page 187, line 11, after ("provision") insert ("except in so far as this affects the Manchester Corporation Acts of 1879 and 1919 relating to Thirlmere and Haweswater").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to deal with the last amendment which will be discussed in this Report stage. Clause 189 enables the Secretary of State to repeal or amend any local statutory provisions. That has caused a great deal of anxiety to the Friends of the Lake District. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is president of the Friends of the Lake District, and it is sad that he is ill, because he would have taken a great deal of interest in the Bill.
The Friends of the Lake District are concerned that the Manchester Corporation Acts 1879 and 1919 relating to Thirlmere and Haweswater could be endangered. Although over the past 55 years the friends have been critical of the activities of the water authorities, there have been only rare occasions when they or any of the other conservation organisations have had recourse to the two Acts.
The water authorities and Manchester Corporation have been law-abiding. For that reason the friends wish to see the provisions of the two Acts safeguarded in the future. It would be their insurance policy.
In January 1984 Mrs. Susan Johnson took the North-West Water Authority to court under the 1879 Act because the authority had planted the wrong kind of trees—spruce, cypress, larches and laurels—around Thirlmere, when the Act required that the new margin of Thirlmere should be planted with indigenous forest trees such as ash, birches and oaks. The Act requires that all reasonable regard shall be had to the preservation as well for the public as for the private owners of the beauty of the scenery. Mrs. Johnson won her case.
As a result, the authority is to fell 112 larch and cypress trees, so the Act has its uses. Earlier this month, representations were made to the National Park Authorities about restricting access to certain areas about Thirlmere under the Manchester Act.
In April a letter was written by the friends to the Secretary of State expressing the anxiety felt about the clause. In reply they were told that the Secretary of State had no intention of altering the provisions of the 1879 and 1919 Acts. He said that the clause existed to enable him to refer to the new water and sewerage companies under local legislation.
Those who mind about such issues would like to see provision in the Bill. The present Secretary of State may mean what he says and stick to it; but there is no confidence that future secretaries of state will take the same line. We want reassurance. I believe that it is worth preserving the provisions in the two Acts and preventing the Secretary of State having power to repeal or amend them.
Parliament included those provisions specifically to protect parts of the Lake District from coniferisation, and to ensure that the beauty of the Lake District was preserved. Surely such provision should not be repealed without being fully considered by Parliament and not repealed by way of order only from the Secretary of State. Planning controls exist today; but what about in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time? If planning controls are relaxed—and today we have heard examples of such controls being inefficient—the old Acts will still exist. They would be a last line of defence for the Lake District's landscape. I hope that the Government will look kindly on this simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister will remember that at about 4.30 in the morning when these matters were debated before the short Recess I had the opportunity of moving an amendment of similar local content and interest. My interest was the New River in Hertfordshire which is well known to the Minister. It was a matter which he said was of such local interest that it would not be proper to deal with it in a Bill of this nature. I may be presaging the remarks of the Minister who will reply on this subject. He nods his head, in which case it may be end of story.
As my noble friend Lady David has said, when local anxieties are brought before your Lordships' House we look at what they are. My interests are in Enfield and the New River and those of my noble friend Lady David are in the Lake District and in the two areas that she spoke about. I believe that it
1408
may be possible for the Minister to express hopes and opinions if he is unable to recommend statute action. Undoubtedly there will be a period of great uncertainty in the transitional period. The public authorities—namely, the water authorities—have been more accessible and subject to the will of local people than the future plcs may be.
I very much hope that in this instance the Minister can go a little further than he did when I raised the matter of the New River. I am not cavilling at what he said because it was a reasonable exercise in putting the matter on the record. Local people in Enfield were happy. I hope that he can understand that where there appear to be enshrined rights that may be under attack under the new aegis that is coming forward, it is right and proper that those rights are raised. Equally, it is right and proper that the Minister should try to assuage those worries.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be that Mrs. Johnson took rather an extreme view concerning the larch, which I have always thought to be a rather nice tree.
The purpose of this amendment is to secure that the power in Clause 189 for the Secretary of State by order to amend or repeal any local enactment shall not be available in respect of the Manchester Corporation Acts which concern Thirlmere and Haweswater. There are at least three reasons why we believe that this amendment is unnecessary.
The first is the sheer remoteness of the issue. It is virtually inconceivable that as a consequence of this Bill any possible need could arise to amend legislation protecting Thirlmere and Haweswater. I am happy to confirm that the Government have absolutely no such intention. Secondly, the Bill already provides in subsection (4) that the Secretary of State may not use this power in relation to so much of any local Act as concerns public access and amenity, and that is of course a significant part of the scope of the Manchester Acts.
Finally, there is one thing of which the House can be absolutely confident in this Bill. It is of the protection afforded to water authority land such as Thirlmere and Haweswater. They are protected by the Clause 8 conservation and amenity duties. They are protected by the national parks notification procedure in Clause 9. They will benefit from the code of practice in Clause 10. Finally their long-term protection can be secured through the controls in the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 140. So the noble Baroness, Lady David, may be reassured that not only have we no intention of amending or repealing the Manchester Acts, but what we are doing in relevant parts of the Bill will serve to reinforce existing protection of Thirlmere and Haweswater. If we were to start writing into legislation all the things that we had no intention of doing, the Bill would be a great deal longer than it already is. I hope that with the confident commitments I have given to the noble Baroness, she will feel able to resist pressing the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I cannot say that I am not a little disappointed but I am not altogether surprised. I am grateful for the Minister's

1409
reassurance. I am sure that those who asked me to bring this matter forward will be interested to read what he said about the different parts of the Bill which should give them help and protection. I shall send copies of Hansard to them and hear what they have to say. However, I rather doubt whether they will wish to carry the matter further. I am grateful for those reassurances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 192 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment Nos. 171B to 174:
Page 189, line 13, leave out ("and sections 31") and insert (", section 31 and sections 33").
Page 189, line 20, leave out ("and Schedules 22 and 23").
Page 190, line 24, leave out ("and Schedules 22 and 23").
Page 190, line 25, after ("amend") insert ("the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I said that we had a good deal to do at Report stage. We now come to the close of the fourth day of Report, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that we have done a good deal. We have accepted amendments from all sides of the House, we have given further assurances and we have taken away a good deal for consideration before Third Reading. I appreciate that there is still a lot to do.
I should like to thank all noble Lords. I should like especially to thank the Clerks, the Officers and the Hansard Writers, who with their usual good humour have enabled us to get through these four days. I am extremely grateful to all of them.
The amendments are all consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at eight minutes past midnight.