Lords Sitting of 27 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 Salisbury.

Iraq and the Kurds
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the persecution by the Iraqi Government of its Kurdish minority may amount to genocide, as defined in the relevant United Nations convention; and, if so, what action they will take under the provisions of that convention.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, on the evidence we have, we do not believe that the alleged actions of the Iraqi authorities towards the Kurds, about which we have forcefully expressed our concern, constitute genocide as defined under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. Does he agree that the definition of "genocide" in the convention is extremely wide? It is the killing,
"with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,"—
I emphasise the words "in whole or in part"—
"a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".
Does he agree that under Article 8 of the convention Britain, as a contracting party, is able to,
"call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter … as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide"?
Apart from anything else, does not the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in Halabja constitute the killing in whole or in part of the Kurdish people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to those facts, but it is a fact also that the crime of genocide comprises two elements: the intent to destroy and one or more of the acts as listed in the convention, which the noble Lord has partially quoted from. Under the convention, conspiracy to commit genocide is punishable as well as the act itself. Of course we condemn Iraq's human rights record, but the evidence we possess does not back up genocide under the UN convention, however much the noble Lord may think it does.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, do the Government take the view that genocide actually has to be committed before action is taken under the convention, when acts which appear to any intelligent observer to be acts preparatory to genocide have already been committed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I understand it, genocide has to comprise those two parts to which I
576
have referred: first of all the intent and then one or more of the acts which are listed under the convention.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in addition to the grim facts described by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, can the noble Lord confirm reports that 100,000 Kurds have recently been deported from their home city of Qala Diza? What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Iraqi Government about that? Secondly, in the light of these monstrous actions by the Iraqi Government, which Her Majesty's Government have from time to time condemned both in this House and outside, how can the noble Lord justify a British presence at the Iraqi arms fair last month, which in my view is quite indefensible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, there has certainly been considerable press reporting of the forcible removal of Iraqi Kurds from Qala Diza and also from Rania. The Iraqis have denied any mass relocation, but they have admitted to what they call some "local resettlement" in north-east Iraq on security and anti-smuggling, as well as humanitarian, grounds. As I said in answer to a Question some weeks ago, we have urged the Iraqis to allow British diplomats and journalists to visit the area to see for themselves what is happening. But we have made quite clear to the Iraqis that, despite the proximity of these towns to the Iraq-Iran border, there is no justification whatever for mass deportations. Britain and other Western countries took the lead in co-sponsoring a firm and unambiguous resolution on Iraq at the UN CHR. It is disappointing that an Iraqi procedural motion blocked that resolution.
The arms fair is very much a matter for individual companies to take part in if they wish. We cannot comment on individual cases.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, how can he justify the arms fair? Does he defend the sale of arms by this country to the present Iraqi Government?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows full well, all exports of defence-related equipment to Iran and Iraq, whether or not they stem from an arms fair, are governed by very strict guidelines. They prohibit the supply of lethal equipment which would significantly enhance the military capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate any conflict. Whether or not companies attended that arms fair would be no guarantee of licences being agreed for export.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what are the non-lethal arms which he believes would be appropriate to export from this country to Iraq?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, a wide range of equipment can be used in a variety of different ways. I do not have a list with me but I shall look at it to see whether I can let the noble Lord know.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can it be the case—and apparently it is—that the Foreign Office did not receive a copy of the fax sent to The Times and other newspapers yesterday admitting that the evacuation of Qala Diza had been completed, involving the transfer of 16,000 families or approximately 100,000 people?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not know where that particular fax stemmed from, but I have not seen it. That claim, which I have heard on a number of occasions and which was referred to earlier, stemmed largely from the press, and we have seen nothing to justify it.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the fax was received from the Iraqi Embassy in London.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge I have not seen it, but I shall check to discover whether it was received.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister said that it was prohibited, as well it would be, to conspire to commit genocide as well as to commit it. Can he explain what kind of preparation has been identified which would rank as conspiracy?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness's question off the top of my head. We must look at the convention not only from a practical but also from a legal point of view. In answering the first supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I pointed out that these two elements—the intent and then the acts—must be complied with if a breach of that convention is to be proved. The fact is that we do not believe that the two elements—the intent to destroy and breaching of those acts—has taken place.
Lord McNair: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are convinced that chemical weapons were used on the population of Halabja and, if so, that it was the Iraqi forces which carried out the attack? If not, who else could possibly have done it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly it is quite possible that chemical weapons were used, and we utterly deplore that fact. On 30th November last year my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State made a clear condemnation of that. We were horrified by the barbaric acts which took place during the Iran/Iraq conflict at Halabja and we played a leading role in drafting the tough UN Resolution 612 which followed.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is it possible to prove intent? Surely that is difficult to prove.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is perfectly true. It is made even more difficult when the crime must be supported not only by intent but also by the actions to which I referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following the question put by my noble friend the Leader of the
578
Opposition, can the Minister tell us, off the top of his head or otherwise, which British company would attend an arms fair without a serious expectation of selling arms?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that is a question which the noble Lord might address to the arms manufacturers.

The Lebanon: EC Discussions
2.46 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent initiatives by the Arab League in respect of Lebanon, they have had any further discussions with their European Community partners with a view to assisting the resolution of the problems of Lebanon by the people of Lebanon.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the urgent need for a solution to Lebanon's crisis is reguarly discussed at meetings of the Twelve. We and our European partners fully support the efforts of the Committee of Three set up by the Arab League Summit in Casablanca, as was made clear in the statement issued by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 12th June.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the Arab League initiative would be even more welcome if the proposed cease-fire were being strictly enforced? Are the Government aware that Syria, aided by Iranian extremists, is bombarding and blockading the ports so as to deprive the people of their route of essential supplies? Is it not now clear, as it surely must be, that the position of Lebanon is that of a cockpit being used to perpetuate conflicts among countries of the Middle East, and that the only prospect of a durable solution to restore independence to the Lebanon must be through the appointment of an international arbiter under the auspices of either the European Community or the United Nations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course I am aware of the worries about the cease-fire being broken. However, I believe that my noble friend should have more faith and hope that the Committee of Three will produce a solution. The fact that it has produced a staged plan is encouraging and it certainly has our support. It is a high-level plan involving two kings and one president, and a great deal of serious effort is being made to meet my noble friend's concerns.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with every day that passes without a solution hundreds of ordinary Lebanese people are slain or maimed; the whole country is being further destroyed, particularly Beirut; and that the lives of the British nationals and others who are prisoners there are more endangered on each clay that no action is taken to back up the resolution, making it a reality and bringing peace to the area?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we are too well aware of the tragedies referred to by the noble Lord. For that reason it is important that the work being carried out by the Committee of Three should be given a fair chance. Indeed, already there are signs of progress. At a meeting today in Oran in Morocco, no doubt the heads of state of the Committee of Three will discuss the outcome of the first round of their Foreign Ministers' contacts. We should give it every wish for good speed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Arab League has been able to deploy a monitoring force in Beirut following the cease-fire? Can he confirm that the Government have now determined that it is the Iranian Government who decide whether hostages shall be kept in captivity or let loose in Beirut? If that is the case, as seems likely, what representations can Her Majesty's Government make to see that the hostages are set free?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have with me any facts about a monitoring force. As regards hostages, we continue to seek information on their safety and whereabouts. Our ambassador in Beirut was recently following up reports which had been received. We keep in regular contact with the Americans and with other countries whose nationals are held hostage. Their future is extremely difficult to predict; but we do our very best.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there not now a general view that Mr. Rafsanjani is rather more liberal and less radical in outlook than was the Ayatollah Khomeini and that there is a better prospect of obtaining the release of Mr. Terry Waite and the other hostages than there has been for many months?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I understand that point of view. However, I do not believe that it is helpful to speculate. We continue to call on those holding hostages and those who may have influence on them to release those hostages now on humanitarian grounds.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if one consults the article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica on the Lebanon, they were at it more than 100 years ago?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the sooner it is brought to a conclusion the better.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is widespread agreement that the European Community is right to give whatever help it can to the Arab League initiative, especially to its very able chief negotiator Mr. Lakhadar Ibrahimi? Does he agree that success depends not only on the withdrawal of the intervention of Syria and Iran but also of the Government of Israel?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, I broadly agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, my noble friend asked me to have faith. How is it possible to have faith in the Arab League initiative, the principal plank of which was the proposal for a ceasefire, when the ceasefire requirement is not being enforced on the Syrians?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course it is important to ensure that the ceasefire is upheld. The fact that it is not upheld goes to show my noble friend the very real difficulties that this sort of matter involves. That is why we have faith in the Committee of Three and why, as I said in answer to an earlier supplementary question, the meeting of the heads of state in Oran today may bear some fruit.

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes: Progress
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further progress has been made in setting up neighbourhood watch schemes and farm watch schemes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there are now over 66,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering approximately 3·25 million households. The total has increased by 28 per cent. over the past twelve months. Farm watch is a useful adaptation of the neighbourhood watch model, which the Government wholly support. The number of farm watch schemes is not recorded centrally.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. Does he agree that those schemes have had a considerable effect in that there has been a very welcome drop in the number of burglaries and thefts involving cars? However, is he aware that some Labour councils have made it impossible for neighbourhood watch schemes to be set up because they prohibit the putting up of notices on council-owned lamp posts or on other properties belonging to the council?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is quite correct. There has been a considerable drop—it amounts to about 5 per cent.—in the number of crimes against property as recorded in 1988. It is reasonable to assume some connection between that and the success of the neighbourhood watch schemes. The noble Baroness also referred to thefts from vehicles. Those have dropped by 6 per cent. Thefts of vehicles have also dropped by 6 per cent.
As regards my noble friend's observations about certain Labour controlled councils, that is not a new phenomenon. We have experienced the fact that some councils have not been particularly co-operative regarding neighbourhood watch schemes. But new regulations from the Department of the Environment, which came into force in January 1988, have removed the requirement for prior planning permission to be obtained for the

581
putting up of neighbourhood watch notices. There is evidence that that has helped those schemes.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the stealing of cattle, sheep and pigs from farms is increasing immensely? In my neighbourhood six cattle were stolen about a month ago and there is absolutely no trace of them. I hope that the Government are encouraging the watch schemes one way or another in the hope that they will help the situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that if anything is stolen it is a misfortune. It is very difficult to trace cattle, pigs and sheep. About 18 forces have recorded farm watch schemes operating in their areas. That is quite a reasonable percentage. Anything that we can do to help, we shall.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if there are designated farm watch schemes but some farms are outside it, are those farms not more at risk? Will the Minister ask police in rural areas to make available to the public more information on how to fight crime?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole principle of neighbourhood or farm watch schemes is that people collectively care for their property. They work together and share each others' interests. Obviously, in the case of farm watch schemes, those who co-operate in the scheme are at an advantage over those who do not; otherwise there is no point in having a scheme.
We are concerned to see as many of these schemes as possible started up. The Home Office has produced a book called Practical Ways to Crack Crime and 2·5 million copies have been distributed. Crime Concern has also been set up. This independent organisation was launched by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in May 1988.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is a neighbourhood watch scheme any help against the sudden, unannounced arrival of about 11,000 people in the neighbourhood who then indulge in a party lasting all night and use drugs?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the object of the neighbourhood watch scheme is to alert the police to anything untoward. If 11,000 people have a party, using drugs, in your street, I should think that the neighbourhood watch scheme would alert the police to it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if he would care to watch, together with other noble Lords, a dinghy race on the Thames between your Lordships' yacht club and our neighbours, the yacht club of the House of Commons, the time to do so is about 3.30 p.m. tomorrow from the Library or the Terrace?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the ingenuity of some of your Lordships to extend the rules of procedure and
582
to advertise is remarkable. However, I agree with my noble friend that that extends the neighbourhood watch scheme in a way which even the Government had not anticipated.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the police be alerted to this untoward event tomorrow?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the police read Hansard, as I am sure they do, they will have been notified.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what interest the National Farmers' Union has shown in these schemes? Is it doing anything? Has it been consulted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend had best consult the National Farmers' Union about that. We are trying to organise schemes whereby farmers co-operate collectively. In so far as the National Farmers' Union can help, then I hope that it will do so.

NHS Policy Board: Membership Criteria
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the criteria for membership of the National Health Service Policy Board as stated to the House by Lord Henley on 14th June.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the criteria for membership of the National Health Service Policy Board reflect the board's role, which is to advise my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the formulation of NHS policy and on the strategic oversight of the NHS. Unless the board's role is revised, there can be little reason to review the criteria for its composition.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he could have given a more simplistic Answer by just saying "No"? The Government have decided to totally ignore the suggestions and requests from all corners of your Lordships' House on this subject. The Minister will also recall that in answer to me on the previous occasion he said that the nurses must not view this as a "kick in the teeth"—his words. Is the Minister aware that since the Prime Minister herself, who normally pays fulsome tribute to the nurses and the profession, has point blank refused the nurses an opportunity to discuss this problem? If that is not a kick in the teeth from the Prime Minister, can the Minister explain what is?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, it is not a kick in the teeth. On the same day as the previous Question was asked my right honourable friend had a meeting with the leader of the nurses, Trevor Clay, and a press release was issued following that meeting.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that every single professional organisation in this country upon which our National Health Service depends is deeply upset by the omission from the board of the chief nursing officer? Will the Government discuss this with representatives of all the professional organisations and be prepared to listen to their recommendations to change the structure, which they urgently ask the Government to reconsider?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's views, but I think they stem from a misunderstanding of the role of the policy board. The policy board has been formed to bring wide-ranging management perspectives to bear on the development of National Health Service policy. It will be there to advise Ministers, and purely to advise Ministers, on the tasks and objectives which they should set for the management executive. I should stress that the deputy to the chief nursing officer is represented on the management executive.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us are every bit as concerned about what, if anything, the National Health Service Policy Board will be able to do concerning who sits on it? The noble Lord told the House that the board will advise the Secretary of State on the formulation of policy. Is the board entitled to advise the Secretary of State on policy that has already been formulated? For example, can the board advise the Secretary of State to defer the introduction of some of the proposals in the White Paper until pilot studies have been held, or are decisions of that kind still to be made wholly and single-handedly by the Secretary of State? If the board cannot do much, it does not greatly matter who sits on it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I stressed that the board is advisory. My right honourable friend cannot delegate all decisions that are his by right to make.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, now that the National Health Service Policy Board and the National Health Service management executive have started work, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government envisage any change in the role and position of the regional health authorities and the committee—that is, between them and the Secretary of State—who have in the past advised him on policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the committee of chairmen of the regional health authorities will continue to meet as normally; but, as I have stressed, the policy board's role is advisory.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is the fourth time that the Government have taken this attitude with the nurses. The Government took them off the regional executives, they took them from the supervisory boards, they have taken away their budgets and this is the fourth time they have tried to take away the managerial functions of the nurses. Why do the Government do this?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view. My right honourable friend still has the greatest respect for the chief nursing officer and for the nursing profession, as I stressed on the previous occasion that this Question arose.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that Florence Nightingale was a very good manager, in that during the Crimean War she reorganised the whole of the hospital and nursing services? Surely among the thousands of nurses now working in the National Health Service there must be one who is an excellent manager. Would not such an appointment give a boost to the morale of all nurses?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, but my right honourable friend has announced membership of the policy board. He has also announced membership of the management executive, which contains a nurse.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the information which I have received from the Department of Health that the terms of reference of this new policy board will not be agreed until a meeting on 6th July? If that is so, that gives the Government an opportunity to review the criteria for membership in the light of the terms of reference which are yet to be agreed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to correct the noble Lord, I believe the meeting is on the 7th July and not 6th July. If I am incorrect I will advise the noble Lord. The terms of reference will come before the board but, as I stressed, the board will remain an advisory board.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to rise at this late stage but, referring to his earlier reply, is the Minister aware that yesterday the Royal College of Nursing issued a press statement to the effect that the Royal College general secretary, Trevor Clay, has expressed his disappointment at the Prime Minister's refusal to meet with the Royal College of Nursing council deputation on the genuine concerns of nurses in regard to the policy board? How does that tie up with his earlier reply? Something is different somewhere.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no difference at all. It is up to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as to who she meets. I stress the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has met the nurses' leader, Trevor Clay.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it the Government's policy to set up advisory boards without having the remotest clue as to what will be their terms of reference?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely up to my right honourable friend, or any of my right honourable friends, as to what advisory boards they set up. My right honourable friend has set up the policy board and the noble Lord will see from the White Paper what the policy board is to do. I have stressed that

585
it is an advisory board. There are terms of reference which will come up for discussion at the first meeting.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, may I have an assurance from the Minister that the principle of "not one of us" has not been applied in various appointments to regional health boards throughout the country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is quite beyond the Question on the Order Paper. We are discussing the policy board, not regional health authorities.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Third Reading of the Water Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Control of Smoke Pollution Bill and the Second Reading of the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill will be taken.

Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill
Report received.

Water Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the next Motion is moved perhaps it should be our duty to refer to the Order Paper and the possible misuse of it. A reasoned amendment on Third Reading is an important part of our conventions and procedures, but the amendment on the Order Paper cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a reasoned amendment. It is a rehash of all the arguments discussed in detail during all stages of the Bill. To allow this—and it has happened on one or two occasions in recent months—is to undermine the effectiveness of this House.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, a Motion is not before the House at the moment, and although some noble Lords may have sympathy with what my noble friend said, it should be put when there is a Motion before the House. Perhaps I may therefore suggest to my noble friend that if he wishes to speak in this vein it should be after the Motion has been moved.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert:
"but this House regrets that completion of consideration of the Bill in this House is sought in the absence of adequate information in respect of the terms of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers; the likely terms of the flotation and the sale of securities; the basis on which prices to consumers will be set; the final terms of the code of practice on environmental and recreational matters; the detailed requirements in respect of the quality of drinking water and river water, and the relevant timetables for compliance".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not conceal the view that I and my noble friends hold that this is a deeply objectionable Bill. We said so on Second Reading and we are certainly net taking the opportunity of a reasoned amendment to Third Reading to go over the arguments which could have been and, indeed, were put at Second Reading. That is not our purpose.
The purpose of the reasoned amendment is one that can be achieved only by an amendment at this stage of the Bill. It could not have been achieved earlier. Indeed, we would have preferred it not to be necessary but it is essential before the final stage of consideration of amendments. However detailed the Bill may be—it now stretches to 416 pages—and however complex the regulatory mechanism which it sets up—it is of unexampled complexity; much of the mechanism is not in the Bill at all but is in regulations to be laid by the Secretary of State, by the Director General of Water Services and by other people in Scotland and Wales—the essential documentation and government decisions which are necessary for Parliament to reach a rational judgment on whether privatisation is right for the water industry are still not available to Parliament and to this House.
If I had said that at Second Reading, there would have been a proper answer from noble Lords on the Government Front Bench. They would have said that there would be plenty of opportunity for these matters to be made available to the House. I have had to list the essential matters which are not available to us. I must tell the House that, in the absence of this information, this Bill, however detailed and objectionable it may be, is still in essential matters a hollow Bill.
The matters to which I refer have been the subject of debate throughout a long Committee stage and a rather long Report stage. They refer to the whole business basis on which the new private water and sewerage undertakings are to be set up. They refer to much of the codes and rules for environmental and consumer protection, which are an essential part of the provisions of privatisation, in circumstances where the Government are turning over to private industry and private undertakings, whose first priority must be profit, the control of a water and sewerage system which most people in this country—I believe rightly—consider to be essentially a public service and one which ought to be there for the benefit of consumers and not of shareholders.
Perhaps I may repeat—I am sorry to have to do so—the issues which make this amendment necessary and set out the matters which are still

587
lacking not only on the face of the Bill but even in the form of government decisions and government statements. I refer first to the terms of appointment. This amendment was put down on the Marshalled List last Thursday. At 5.20 yesterday evening, at my office at work and not in this House, the assistant private secretary to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, brought to me by the fastest possible means—I thank him for that—a draft model of the terms of appointment. I am grateful for that. The note from him said that copies would be placed in the Library next week. I must insist that even that courtesy to me is not an adequate courtesy to the House and is not an adequate provision to the House of the information which is necessary for us sufficiently to consider the terms of appointment and to put down proper amendments as we should do as a responsible Opposition.
We studied the terms of appointment as best we could over the weekend. We have taken certain views which will become evident as we come to the debate later on. However, a personal courtesy to me is no substitute for a proper respect for the privileges and responsibilities of this House. We should have had this document in good time for consideration by Parliament. We have not had it.
The terms of flotation are absolutely essential. We are talking about a privatisation procedure whose object is to bring money to the taxpayer in order to free the water and sewerage industry from what is described as the "dead hand of the Treasury"; "the clammy hand", as I think it is called by the chairman of the Thames Water Authority. We do not know what the terms of the flotation are. We do not know whether the debts will be written off and what balance of debt and security will be inherited by the new water undertakings. To put it at its crudest, we do not know whether the taxpayer will get a single penny from this privatisation. We do not know whether the new water undertakings will be adequately financed. We do not know how they will meet the responsibilities which are laid on them by the regulatory mechanism of this Government and by the regulations of the European Commission. None of this information has been made available. None of these things has been spoken of frankly and fully by the Government either in this House or in another place.
Even the model terms of appointment which were sent to me last Friday do not contain any hint of what the prices will be. We know that the prices are to be based on a complex formula of the retail prices index plus K. We do not know what K will be. We do not know whether consumers will be paying 12 per cent. to 15 per cent. more in real terms over the next few years or whether the figure will be 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or even 100 per cent. All those figures are possible depending on other decisions by government and depending on who takes responsibility for the investment programme which is necessary in the water and sewerage undertakings.
The people who vote in elections for another place and in European elections are entitled to know what the Government intend. If the Government are asking elected representatives in another place to support privatisation, they must tell them what the
588
effect will be on consumers' water and sewerage bills. They have not told them. We have no idea. We have our parallel responsibilities as an unelected body, and even we as an unelected body are not being treated seriously by the Government.
It has been common ground throughout the lengthy consideration of the Bill in Committee and in the House that the codes of practice are an essential part of the regulatory mechanism. Many of the concessions for which we have asked have been granted by the Government. I am grateful to the noble Earl, who with his usual courtesy has listened to the arguments sensibly and has made concessions. He has given me assurances, not on the face of the Bill, because the codes of practice are not on the face of the Bill, about what the codes of practice will contain. I know, because I have had a letter about it, that some of the things in the codes of practice will be better. What I do not know is whether things will be worse.
It was only towards the end of last week that we suddenly discovered that an amendment had been introduced—it was described as a transitional amendment—which has the effect of taking away the ability of our inspectorate to control river water quality and sewage disposal into our rivers for a period of at least 12 months. We did not know that. We were not warned about it. It is an almost impenetrable amendment. It is virtually impossible for the layman to understand. We were not warned that that would happen. It is clearly an enormously significant difference in the Bill—one which creates a great gap between enforcement powers under public authorities and enforcement powers under private undertakings, which will now not really be effective until 1991.
I have every confidence in the honour of the Minister. I know that when he tells me that things are in the codes of practice they will be. What I do not know is what other things will be slipped in by the department. I have seen it happening. I do not want it to happen again. I consider that it is the right of this House to see final drafts of the codes of practice before we are asked to make a decision about whether they are accurate. We simply do not have them. Those codes of practice cover essential matters. They cover the whole general issue of regulation of the water and sewerage undertakings. They cover environmental matters, which are set out in detail, but in inadequate detail, in the clauses and schedules of the Bill. They cover disconnections, an important part of social policy as well as of economic and environmental policy, and they cover the whole issue of leakages. In the absence of an up-to-date statement of the Government's views of what those codes of practice will contain, I put it to your Lordships that we cannot consider adequately whether the provisions in the Bill which we are supposed to be debating today are sufficient for the purpose.
I turn now to the quality of water. We have had many debates on the quality of both drinking water and river water. Your Lordships took the view in Committee that there ought to be a timetable for compliance with European Commission directives on drinking water quality. I welcomed that decision;

589
it is one which I sincerely hope members of the Government will not feel necessary to attempt to overturn when the matter returns to another place next week. If they do, I give due warning that those who vote to overturn a timetable for compliance with drinking water qualities will be branded by their electors, and rightly branded by their electors, as having voted for dirty water. It will not be acceptable. Further, I suspect that many Back-Bench Conservative MPs will know in their hearts that it is not acceptable.
The same issue arises as regards river water quality. It arises not only as regards the question of sampling, monitoring, inspecton and enforcement but also as regards the fact that there is no adequate definition in the Bill of what compliance with river water quality should be. We have an amendment on today's Marshalled List about compliance with river water quality objectives. I am not certain whether it is acceptable to the Government. I am not certain, because I am not a professional in such matters, whether the wording is adequate for that purpose. However, I know that an acceptable, complete and adequate answer to the problem is required in the Bill. It is the responsibility of the Government to see that it is in the Bill.
It is also the responsibility of the Government to reassure the people of this country that they have timetables for compliance with river water quality objectives for making our rivers clean, as they now have a timetable for making our drinking water quality clean. They have a responsibility for seeing to it that the necessary investment for both of those purposes—that is, for drinking water and river water quality—will be made available.
We do not have those assurances from the Bill as it stands. Indeed, all of the secondary information and all of the information which should appear on the face of the Bill and ought to be considered by Parliament as the legislation is being considered is lacking.
I have already said that this is an objectionable Bill, and it is. I hope that we shall not have a Second Reading debate on that point. I hope that we shall concentrate, when considering this amendment, on the fundamental point which I have raised: without the information called for in my amendment, which ought to have been available now and ought now to be available for deliberation by your Lordships as consideration of the Bill is completed, the Bill is hollow. It simply allows the Secretary of State to do what he thinks fit after the legislation is passed. In my view Parliament ought not to accept that. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time, at end to insert:
"but this House regrets that completion of consideration of the Bill in this House is sought in the absence of adequate information in respect of the terms of appointment of water and sewerage undertakers; the likely terms of the flotation and the sale of securities; the basis on which prices to consumers will be set; the final terms of the code of practice on environmental and recreational matters; the detailed requirements in respect of the quality of drinking water and river water, and the relevant timetables for compliance".—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a third time, since when an amendment has been moved, at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I first saw this reasoned amendment to the Third Reading Motion last Thursday, I wondered whether it signified that the noble Lord had run out of amendments. Perhaps, I thought, he has decided to put all of his amendments into one and debate them at the start of today's business. I was not far wrong in that guess because he has touched upon many of the amendments which he will be moving later. However, I was disappointed in my original thought because on Friday morning he put down many more amendments. I was also saddened because the noble Lord, among many of your Lordships, has had great influence in changing much of the Bill. Indeed, no fewer than 14 groups of amendments today alone are designed to meet your Lordships' concerns. I must say that this is not an amendment in the usual constructive terms which we have come to expect from him. It is little more than a ritual hand-wringing before we can move on to the business of revising the Bill, which is our duty.
The noble Lord has suggested that he would like to know a lot more before this House finally passes the Bill. How much more information does he want to see? I believe that he is a glutton for punishment. The Bill itself already amounts to over 400 pages and we have published a great deal of supplementary information, as I shall explain in a moment.
Of course there are details of the flotation; and of the appointments of the undertakers; and of the statutory instruments that will be made under the Bill; and of the compliance programmes that will flow out of the asset management plans that have been produced; and of many other things that will not be known before the Bill gets its Royal Assent. But that does not make it any different from previous privatisation measures or so many other measures. What is important is that the Bill contains all the necessary duties and constraints on the Secretary of State as he carries out his functions once it has Royal Assent. That is what the Bill does, that is what the House should be looking at and that is what we have been looking at in much of the earlier stages of the Bill.
Perhaps I may turn to some of the points that have been raised. The model instrument of appointment of the water and sewerage undertakers was first published in December last year and many aspects of it have been debated during the Bill's proceedings in this and the other place. But we cannot publish a final version until the appointments are made, and we cannot make those appointments until we receive Royal Assent. Work on the model has continued and some of the main changes to

591
our intentions during that consideration have been reported to this House. Consultation with the undertakers is now reaching its final stages and we therefore have placed copies of the current working draft in the Libraries of both Houses. Naturally, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly said, I allowed him to have an advance copy of the document last Friday, as soon as it was available.
On charges, the Government's intentions are also perfectly clear. Charges will be limited according to an RPI plus K formula, where K is the maximum amount by which a company can increase its charges in any year above the rate of inflation. Ks will be set initially for 10 years in advance but will be reviewable after Five years if the company or the director general wishes. There will be scope for interim adjustments to reflect certain specified changes in circumstances.
In setting and reviewing Ks, both the Secretary of State and the director general will be bound by their Clause 7 duties. These will require them to set charge limits which ensure that undertakers' water and sewerage functions can be properly carried out in all of England and Wales and that the appointed company can finance the proper carrying out of those functions. They will also have to have regard to the need to protect customer interests, to promote economy and efficiency, to facilitate effective competition and so on. Later on this afternoon we shall consider whether those duties should be added to so that the director general has to pay particular regard to the interests of rural customers when it comes to charges.
But to return to one of the noble Lord's main points, we are simply not ready to announce the level of K. The levels will be announced as soon as decisions are taken. It is impossible to announce decisions before they are taken.
Turning to the issue of the terms of flotation, I would remind the noble Lord of the statement made by my noble friend Lord Hesketh in answer to a Question on 18th May. He made it plain that the Government will put in place capital structures appropriate for the nominated holding companies in the private sector. This will be done in the run up to flotation and implemented by extinguishing all the National Loans Fund debt and taking new securities which may consist of both equity and new debt. The capital structures of each holding company will be determined in the light of the circumstances of that company.
It is too soon to say what those structures will be. As I made abundantly clear during Committee, the necessary decisions cannot and will not be made until shortly before flotation. That is no different from earlier privatisation exercises. There is no question of our concealing our proposals. Similarly, it is too soon to say what the market value of our securities in each holding company will be at the time of flotation. The total value of those securities implied by the share price of the equity sold will depend on the market conditions at the time. If anyone could predict those with certainty, they would not, I suggest, be in the House this afternoon.
592
Now let me turn to the code of practice on conservation, access and recreation under Clause 10. We have gone to great lengths to secure that the House knows well in advance the way in which the Secretary of State proposes to use his powers. Indeed, he has consulted widely upon its terms. A draft of the code was published some six weeks before the Bill even came before your Lordships' House. That was a quite deliberate action so that the House could identify additions or amendments that it wanted. We have given assurances in response to representations made in the House and as a result have incorporated amendments on six particular matters. I have confirmed those assurances in writing to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We could not have been more open and responsive in the way we have pursued this matter.
Further, in your Lordships' House we have accepted an amendment to provide negative resolution procedure for the code. There will therefore be an opportunity for the House to debate the terms of the code when the relevant order is laid.
There are other codes too. The powers of water and sewerage undertakers to lay pipes are to be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the private companies to the Secretary of State for approval. Of course, until the private companies are appointed, they cannot submit the codes, but copies of the model code on which the statutory codes will be based were placed in the Library on 2nd March. The codes will provide increased protection for the interests of landowners when undertakers exercise their powers to lay pipes. Unlike the voluntary codes that already exist in some water authorities, those codes will be mandatory and powers will be subject to the ovesight of the director general. We have been quite open about the code and perfectly willing to debate its content.
The general customer code of practice and the two more specific codes on disconnections and leakages are provided for in the model instrument of appointment. Drafts of all three codes were published in February and copies were laid in the Library. The disconnections code was also debated both in this House and in the other place. A revised procedure for the disconnections code was announced on 18th May, and is incorporated in the latest draft of the model instrument of appointment, to which I referred earlier.
Details of the guaranteed standards scheme were also announced in February, and copies of the model scheme were laid in the Library. Those schemes were referred to in debates in both Houses. Copies of the consultation draft of the regulations were made available to the House in April. Following consideration of the responses to the consultation exercise, the regulations themselves will be laid after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The House will have the opportunity to debate them.
Let me now turn to the question of drinking water. Consultation documents on drinking water quality regulations were published in February this year and were widely distributed. Comments have been received from a wide range of interested bodies. The regulations themselves will be laid immediately after the Water Bill receives the Royal Assent and will be

593
based on the consultation documents. The regulations will provide a comprehensive new system for regulating and safeguarding the quality of water supplies. The requirements of the Community drinking water directive will be incorporated in the regulations as mandatory standards, together with additional national measures. There will be more frequent and accurate sampling and a new procedure for approval of chemicals and other substances used in treating water. In addition, water suppliers will be required to provide full information to customers on the quality of water coming from their taps. Once those stringent regulations are in force, both local authorities and the new drinking water inspectorate to be set up by the Government will closely check that all requirements are being met. We have published consultation documents setting out the full details of what we are proposing to do. We cannot bring those regulations before the House until, again, the Bill has received Royal Assent; but we shall do so soon after, and the House will have a chance to debate those regulations.
Undertakers with supplies which do not comply with the standards set under the regulations will have to submit undertakings under Clause 20(5)(b) setting out action programmes to achieve compliance within stated timescales. Any company which fails to comply with the standards will face enforcement action, unless it has submitted an undertaking which has been accepted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will only accept undertakings which aim to achieve compliance as soon as possible; but timescales must be ones which undertakers can physically achieve and they must safeguard the continuity of public supplies. Programmes have been submitted by the water authorities and water companies but they are still being considered, and details of undertakings, including timescales, will be published in due course. They cannot be published before they have been fully drawn up.
On river quality, we have made it quite clear to the House that it would be wholly unreasonable to establish the relevant classifications and objectives before the NRA is in being to give advice and to consult on them. That is especially so since it will have the main role in carrying them forward. It would be quite irresponsible of us to follow any one course; but we have given assurances that the next steps will follow as soon as practicable after the authority is up and running, work on the 1990 river quality survey completed, and appropriate consultations undertaken.
As far as the related programme of sewage treatment works improvements is concerned, we have made clear its scope, purpose and timetable during the past few months. The first announcement was in December. The noble Lord referred to an amendment which we look forward to discussing later.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred on Report to a study that the Secretary of State had invited the NRAAC to undertake in reviewing the present system for monitoring and assessing compliance with discharge consents. That will include the future role of look-up tables which are
594
currently used to assess whether sewage treatment works meet their consent conditions. We should like to endorse what my noble friend said about the open-ended nature of that review.
Neither the Government nor the NRAAC are committed to retaining the present system indefinitely. I am confident that the NRA will undertake the study in an expert and objective manner and it can look forward to government support in carrying through any changes or developments to the system which its review shows to be justified. The outcome will be important for the NRA in securing the improvements to water quality needed in the 1990s. Our officials are currently discussing the detailed terms of reference of that review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to make a more detailed announcement shortly.
I come back to the point that I made in opening. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is a difficult man to please. He is asking us to publish information before we even have it. He is asking for information that has not been available at a similar stage of earlier privatisations. Much of it cannot be.
The important point is that the powers and duties contained in the Bill will govern the way in which the water industry works in the future to the benefit of customers, shareholders, and—and this is my concern—the environment. So we cannot support the reasoned amendment either in its overall aim or its detail.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, one of the problems with following the noble Earl is that he always sounds so reasonable, but Members on this side of the House do not believe that he has sufficiently answered the forceful arguments submitted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Whatever else may be said about the Bill, there can be no doubt that it is universally unpopular. Its principal sponsor, the Secretary of State for the Environment, whom I will pan, is without question the most disliked and distrusted member of the present Cabinet.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, yes he is. For confirmation of that statement one has only to recall the size of the Green vote in the recent Euro-election and, more particularly, the result in the Cotswolds, where the Green candidate polled exceptionally well. For those of us in all parties who have pursued environmental issues consistently during our parliamentary careers, the size of the support for the Greens is frustrating, to say the least, but understandable. Yet, under this measure, far too much of vital importance is being left to the discretion of the self-same Secretary of State and the provision of future regulations of unknown content.
I appreciate that in Committee and on Report the Minister has shown concern and brought forward a number of reassuring amendments. The fact is that the whole measure was misconceived, and whether a satisfactory flotation will now prove possible

595
remains to be seen. One suspects that the terms, about which of course we remain totally in the dark, will have to be extraordinarily generous, and future regulations watered down, if City investors are to be attracted in sufficient numbers.
We remain in the dark about the mysterious formula K. There are said to be some 39 variations being played around with in the department. Large sums of money are already being spent on advertising. There is even to be a national water exhibition in Birmingham from 3rd to 5th October. That is nice timing if there ever was one. For Mr. Michael Cardey, secretary of the Water Authorities' Association to say, as he did on television last night, that all that expenditure had nothing to do with privatisation is clearly nonsense. He can go and tell that story to the marines. For consumers, it is a disaster. The cost of privatisation alone will add between 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. to their bills. One only has to read the press today to see that, in my former constituency in the Isle of Wight, people receiving their first bills following metering are finding that the cost of water to them has already more than doubled. The Government should, of course, have listened more sympathetically to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. But he was brushed aside by the friends of "you know who" all of them duly rewarded for their pains by invitations to the celebratory lunch at Chequers.
Most of us suspect that despite its undoubted expertise local government will be largely frozen out, although in Scotland it remains in control, and rightly so. That is par for the course with this Government. Representation of consumers and voluntary bodies with expert environmental knowledge on important committees remains in doubt despite continuing concerns expressed about the planning, the land use, the amenity and conservation implications of this Bill.
If, as we suspect, commercial exploitation occurs on a substantial scale, it will be too late to put the process into reverse in a few years' time. The damage will have been done. Those are some of the reasons why the amendment should be supported. It certainly will be by those of us on these Benches.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before we go on with the debate, could I just say one thing? I realise that when we have a reasoned amendment of this kind at this stage of our discussion of one of the biggest Bills I have ever seen, feelings run high. However, I beg noble Lords in all parts of the House to remember that while we jealously guard our own rights in this House regarding remarks of a personal nature made in another place, so we ought to have an eye to our own standing orders. Our own standing orders are absolutely explicit:
"It is undesirable that any Member of the House of Commons should be mentioned by name, or otherwise identified, for the purpose of criticism of a personal nature."
I hope that it will not happen again.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for his
596
observation because it saves me making a similar one. I wish to thank also my noble friend Lord Caithness for a marvellous exposition in which he dealt with all the points raised so cogently and strongly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in supporting this criticial amendment. I thought he made a good answer to most of them. I recognise that there were some effective points in the noble Lord's critical amendment.
My reason for opposing the critical amendment is that so far as concerns this House and very nearly so far as concerns the other place, the parliamentary process for this monster Bill (because that it is, not only in size but in other ways) is pretty well over. I am looking to the future when the water companies have been launched and go into operation. I cannot but think that a critical amendment such as this attached at Third Reading would be damaging to the confidence of the companies as they enter into the immensely difficult task which Parliament has laid upon them.
Although the noble Lord has conducted a most effective campaign, if I may say so, in opposition to the Bill and has indicated in every way that we should do much better without it, that does not alter the fact that Parliament as a whole is about to cause this major change to happen in the water industry. The water companies will be born. What matters now, in my opinion, is that they should be born successfully and that they should operate successfully. There are some 50,000 men and women working in the water industry; there they are, working away every day, supplying the water for the nation, dealing with the effluent and its disposal. Whoever is in Parliament, whatever legislation there is, these people—I know many of them—have to go on working just the same. What matters, as I see it, is that the companies should be properly financed and launched in a reasonable way. I do not believe that the amendment will help in this context. That is why I shall not be in favour of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, referred to the amendment which I moved at Committee stage. I think we should have had a better Bill if the Committee had accepted my amendment. However, that is now water under the bridge; I cannot alter it. The plcs will have a financial structure—in what we all realise is a no-growth industry—that depends upon the profit motive. There will be a permanent conflict between the interests of the shareholders and those of the consumers. So from the start the water companies will have a very difficult job of management.
I sympathise with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to know the values of K. We have all heard of the urgent discussions going on behind the scenes as to what on earth they are to be in order to reconcile these conflicting interests. Of course the financial structure of the companies is still unknown, as the noble Lord rightly said.
I am surprised at the delay, I am bound to say. I should have thought by now that we should have heard about it. Personally I am prepared to give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State as long as he likes, provided he comes back with the right

597
answer. In my opinion the right answer is a generous financial disposition for the new plcs. I say that with all the urgency I can to my noble friend the Minister. That will enable the plcs to shoulder their new responsibilities of satisfying shareholders as well as consumers without unacceptably high increases in charges next year.
The reality is that the Government have chosen to privatise the industry at a moment when a major improvement in standards of purity of water supply and standards of effluent discharge is seen as necessary both nationally and within Europe. The cost of these higher standards is estimated at approximately £5 billion over the next five years. This capital expenditure is in addition to existing capital commitments on such long-term projects as renewal and repair of the half million kilometres of water mains and sewers and much else, although it must be added, as already mentioned, that the initial cost of privatisation is estimated at some £800 million.
To carry all this capital expenditure on water charges would involve excessively high increases for the next few years of the order of 30 to 50 per cent. per annum. Nobody knows, but it is of that order. Such a prospect would clearly prejudice a successful Stock Exchange launch and would place an impossible strain on the water company managers, squeezed between their duty to pay a dividend to their shareholders and supply water services to their customers at reasonable charges.
I suggest that the priority now is to see that this workforce of 50,000 people who keep the service going throughout the year is given a sound financial basis. I do not believe that this critical amendment will help that. It is the Government's responsibility and interest to provide this adequate financial structure. I suggested in Committee that the proceeds of the sale on the Stock Exchange should go back into the industry. That was not accepted. Therefore, I wish to suggest an alternative to which I have adverted previously. I now suggest using the £4 billion worth of Public Works Loan Board loans to the regional water authorities. The law requires the extinguishment of these loans. My proposal is that this large sum should be re-lent to the new water companies interest free in the form of undated loans. That would give a strong enough financial base for the water companies to face the huge commitments ahead of them. It would give them a fair prospect of meeting capital expenditure without unacceptably high increases in charges.
In this context I referred in Committee to the powerful group of local authorities who are preparing to launch a legal action for compensation for what they regard as their assets which were transferred in 1973 by the 1973 Act to the regional water authorities, on the basis that they were given a majority on the regional water authorities. They were given such a majority; they accepted that. However, that was removed 10 years later by the 1983 Act. Therefore, they feel that they have not been fairly treated. As I am not in the counsel of the local authorities, I do not know whether this is the case; but it is possible that if my noble friend was
598
able to make a generous settlement in this context of providing a generous basis for the financial settlement of the new companies, these local authorities may be persuaded to call off their pursuit.
I have taken this opportunity 10 mention this matter as much has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That gives one an opportunity to say almost anything. I have made the point which I feel is of the most practical significance in getting the water companies off to a fair and reasonable start. I hope my noble friend will be able to take note of this point, because I feel that, if my point were taken on board, these regional water authorities who are to become the new private water companies would be given a fair start to carry out an extremely difficult job. That job will be made that much more difficult when they have to satisfy shareholders as well as consumers. I believe that unless we give the new privatised companies a fair and generous start they will not be able to do that job. However, I do not think it would be helpful if the noble Lord's reasoned amendment, even though it is so cogently expressed, were attached to the Bill. Therefore, I shall vote against it.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, much of what I originally intended to say has already been covered. However, I wish to make one or two statements which I think are relevant to the discussion we have already had. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned that on many occasions the final fine tunings for other privatisations had not been mentioned at this stage in legislation. However, I suggest to the noble Earl that there has never been a privatisation which can compare with this one. We are breaking new ground because we are privatising a body which does not even have comparative competition, in that water cannot be substituted by any other natural resource. We are taking out of the control of the nation something which is absolutely vital to life itself. As such, I suggest we should have set new precedents and gone further and been more definite from the start.
I am not all that well informed as regards the actual flotation, so I shall let that matter pass and let the words of those who are wiser than me in this respect carry their full weight. However, the factor of price is worrying for the simple reason that uncertainty is always damaging. However, that matter can be left to rest upon the comments of those who have spoken before me.
The matter that primarily concerns me is that of the environmental and drinking water standards. I suggest that this Bill should have taken as its prime objective the setting of a date by which we would definitely meet certain standards and take a series of positive environmental measures. The Bill should state when those things would occur and where the financing would come from. The Bill should also state that the Government would make such financing available, hopefully before any privatisation. It would be fairer to the City if the funding was made available before privatisation. Surely, as a money making institution, the City should not have to shoulder such responsibilities.

599
When all this is said and done, I feel that the Bill is a very odd one as it does not encourage the establishment of a private industry which will face at least a certain degree of competition in dealing with such an important part of our natural environment and our lives. I hope that by the time we finish today many of the questions that have been raised in this debate will have been fully answered.
3.55 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I do not support this reasoned amendment, broadly for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Nugent has already stated. However, for many of us who support the broad thrust of government policy, this is a disappointing Bill. It is lacking in wisdom, despite the many improvements that have been made in your Lordships' House, and which, no doubt, will be made elsewhere. We have spent many hours on the Bill, and many more hours will be spent on it. Much effort has been spent on what I believe to be unnecessary legislation.
The Bill does nothing to promote either national prosperity or the quality of life which could not have been achieved more easily and more effectively in other ways. However, I wish to pay tribute to my noble friends on the Front Bench, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Caithness. I pay tribute to them for the effort, hard work and, most of all, for the patient way in which they have dealt with the many amendments which have been tabled. If that time had been spent on a Bill which sought to improve the quality of water, to curtail pollution and protect and enhance the environment, it would have been infinitely more worthwhile.
Privatisation of course makes sound sense in every case where competitive market forces operate. Profit is the best incentive to efficient operation, and is an excellent measure of success in serving customers. It is also effective in attracting new capital investment. But that applies only if profit is earned in a competitive market place where customers have a choice. Such conditions do not operate in water supply, so this privatisation is flawed in that respect. Customer protection and prevention of abuse in a private monopoly situation has had to be provided by a vast rigmarole of regulations and regulatory powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services. This is a wholly artificial situation and alien to the sound principles of reward for enterprise and risk taking, and of market forces.
The only one possible reason in favour of this Bill, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford mentioned, is that the Exchequer will not have to find the large sums of money that will be required for improving the quality of water and controlling pollution. But that is a poor argument, for it is neither wise nor fair that individual water companies should bear the burden of this expenditure which will raise the costs of water to individuals and to industry, neither of which is desirable, particularly in present circumstances. It would be better if that expenditure was shared throughout the country by means of taxation. That could have been achieved
600
without all the complications of privatisation. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will give serious and sympathetic consideration to the ideas put forward by my noble friend Lord Nugent who has such wide and long experience in this matter.
I have no enthusiasm for this Bill, nor, I believe, does it have wide support in the Conservative Party or in the country. Indeed, I believe it has done our party quite considerable harm, to no purpose. Certainly the vast majority of Conservative supporters to whom I have spoken have no enthusiasm for the Bill. However, I shall not vote against the reasoned amendment, broadly for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Nugent has given. In any case that would serve no purpose, and it would simply give encouragement to noble Lords opposite, which I have no wish to do. However, I implore the Government when planning future legislation never again to allow dogma to overrule common sense.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on the other hand—
Noble Lords: Order!
3.59 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I apologise, as I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was about to do, in that I did not place my name on the list of those who wished to speak. I had not realised that that was necessary on a reasoned amendment. I apologise for my ignorance in that matter. However, I think it will be agreed that I have been a conscientious follower of this Bill in all its stages in this House; so I hope I may be forgiven.
I wish briefly but emphatically to support the reasoned amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He listed wide areas of concern where, after all this time, government policy and the administrative arrangements for carrying it out remain far from clear. I shall refer to only one of these areas; namely, water quality and the monitoring and enforcement of standards. Who is really responsible? Consultative documents were indeed issued in February with the most detailed scientific tables. But they did not tell us where the buck stops.
Responsibility for the monitoring of sampling and analysis is divided among the new plcs, the National Rivers Authority as principal watchdog (but not covering drinking water), the local authorities and the drinking water inspectorate of the Department of the Environment, with the director general holding a watching brief on behalf of the consumer. At this late stage we still do not know what the drinking water inspectorate will do. Will it, as one hears, conduct no more than a paper audit based on monitoring data provided by the plcs? Why does the National Rivers Authority not have the duty or the resources to check drinking water as well as other water quality?
We have been given no adequate explanation of the division of responsibilities. At Committee stage I raised the matter of local authority responsibilities. As one would expect, I received a most courteous letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, detailing

601
changes made since the 1973 Water Act. However, he was completely silent on the vital matter of the competence in terms of manpower and laboratory resources of the majority of local authorities to carry out what appear to be their continuing very important and complex responsibilities for water sampling and analysis.
In 1973 many of the local authorities simply transferred their staff and equipment to the new water authorities, on which at that time, as we have been reminded, they were represented. Many of them are now seriously under-resourced for the responsibilities which, according to the Bill as it now stands, will still rest with them. Anyone who has followed the Camelford saga will realise how hopeless it was for any of the victims in that area to rely on the work of the local authority.
I shall not elaborate further. It must be clear to everyone that in their decision to float the new companies in November at all costs, come what may, the Government are imposing on us legislation which leaves vital areas of concern unclear and ill-defined. Not least are the proposals put forward with conviction, at this very late hour, by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent.
Had the Department of the Environment realised earlier what was involved in this massive exercise of simultaneously both privatising and regulating the water industry we should not now find ourselves forced to acquiesce in matters which we know ought to have been more thoroughly examined. After several decades in the other place and in this House that is not a position in which I for one care to find myself.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may make so hold in my short speech as to confine myself to the terms of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and I am one of those who admire his spirited efforts during earlier stages of the Bill—made an impassioned speech which was not really justified either by the terms of the Bill or by our legislative practice. Perhaps I may deal with each of the six points in turn.
First, he said that the Bill should have mentioned the appointment of water and sewerage undertakers. No statute that we have ever passed has set out the full terms of appointment of members of public boards. This Bill does at least indicate, in Clause 1(4), the kind of experience required and does so in fairly broad terms.
Secondly, he complained that there is an absence of adequate information on the terms of the flotation and the sale of securities. I feel bound to point out that an Act of Parliament is not a prospectus for the sale of shares and we do not mention such things.
Thirdly, he referred to the basis on which prices to consumers will be set. Again, no statute has dared to lay down fully, or even to any great extent, the basis on which prices are set because that depends upon so many factors, many of which are unforeseeable.
The noble Lord's fourth point is that the final terms of the code of practice have not been set out.
602
The object of codes of practice is to avoid going into great detail in a statute. Quite frankly, we have had so much indication from the Government already, and a copy of the draft code of practice deposited in the Library, that it would have been quite absurd in my opinion if the terms had been set out in this Bill, which is already 415 pages long.
Fifthly, he referred to the quality of drinking water and river water. We have eight clauses, fairly long clauses some of them, dealing with this very matter and referring to unwholesome water, wholesome water and so on. I should have thought that the Bill has gone quite as far as it could in attempting to achieve drinking water of the quality which the people in this country require and deserve.
Finally, the noble Lord said that there was an absence of relevant timetables for compliance. Quite frankly, it is not usual to put in a Bill a chronology of the action which is going to be taken to follow it. It would be generally impracticable to do so. In the context of this Bill it simply would not be feasible. But my noble friend Lord Caithness has from time to time indicated the steps that he contemplates will be taken. I do not think that we could have expected more in the Bill than the Government have given us. Strictly speaking I do not see how, on its terms, anyone could vote for the amendment.
4.6 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say a few words. It is true to say that this is the most difficult debate which I have ever had to sum up. It is part Second Reading, part a re-run of the debates on amendments we have already discussed, part a preliminary encounter with the amendments we shall discuss this afternoon and part Bill do now pass. Perhaps I may touch on three themes which came out of the debate.
I shall deal first with the environment, which was a subject raised by my noble friend Lord Nugent. I was grateful for his words. My noble friend Lord Caldecote also touched on the subject, as did the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady White. It is precisely because we wish to see an improvement in our environment that we have brought forward the Bill. It has been proven, to our shame and satisfaction, if those are the appropriate words, that government control of the finances of the water authorities has not led to the improvement in the environment that we had all wished and hoped for.
I am glad to say that, because of rising investment, there are improvements. We have seen it in our bathing waters, we have seen it in drinking water quality and in the vast reduction of sewage works which do not meet the criteria. However, there is more investment to come and further improvements to the environment are needed. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as the right vehicle for achieving that improvement.
My noble friend Lord Nugent raised a subject which I know is of intense concern to him and to many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Addington, namely the question of charges, the K factor and the capital structure. I join noble Lords

603
in saying that I too wish to know what that will be. We all do. But I know that the House will realise that those figures cannot be given until all the work has been done. We have not done all the work, but we are working on it and have been for some months. As soon as we are in a position to let your Lordships know the capital structure and charges, we shall do so.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote was quite political. He said that he did not like the Bill and that the cost of the improvements to the environment and to drinking water and sewerage quality should be met out of taxation. I remind him that it must therefore compete with the very strong and urgent demands that are made on the taxation levy by hospitals, schools, education, the police force and other important areas. Perhaps I may take him back some 14 years to when the Labour Party could not tax us any more—so it increased prices by nearly 43 per cent. on average in 1975–76 and 26 per cent. the following year. We have already seen in Committee that the Labour Party does not like to have a control on prices, as we advocate. So I suggest to my noble friend that the method that he has suggested to the House has been proven in the past not to give any protection to the customer.
My noble friend also referred to the quality of life. Perhaps I may remind him that the swingeing increases of which I reminded the House were accompanied by a massive reduction in investment and an increase in pollution. That was hardly an increase in the quality of life for all of us in this country.
I believe that I have answered fully the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I understand why he has put forward the reasoned amendment. I feel that he is wrong to do so. I look forward very much to discussing the amendments to which he has alluded for the rest of this afternoon and this evening. I reiterate that we have a number of concessions to give your Lordships to meet the very concerns that the noble Lord has mentioned. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the reasoned amendment.
4.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the Minister for his courteous, low-key and even candid response. What he has in effect said to the House is that, "Many of those matters cannot be presented to you because the decisions have not been taken and because"—I believe that I am quoting his words—"they have not been fully drawn up" or, as he said in his winding up speech, "before we have done all the work". I suggest to the House that it is the Government's duty to make their decisions before introducing legislation or before seeking to complete legislation. I suggest that it is the Government's duty to do the work that is necessary. I suggest that it is the Government's duty to draw up fully the instruments that are required to bring into effect legislation.
I do not make that simply as a constitutional point. That would be serious enough. It is most serious because the issues which are still unresolved
604
and on which the Government have not taken their decisions and done all their work—to keep to the words used by the Minister in his response—are vital to the consideration not only by Parliament but by the electorate as to whether privatisation is a good thing or not.
In a speech which understandably undertook to support the Government on this amendment, the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, used the remaining nine-tenths of his time to make a devastating attack on the Government and the proposals for privatisation. I wish that he had done so at Second Reading and that he had been free to take a more active part in the consideration of the Bill as it went through.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made the point for the amendment in two very effective ways, although he stood up to oppose it. First, he criticised the timing of the Bill. That is one of the major points that we are making in proposing the amendment. We are saying that the Government have got their timing all wrong because they have not been able to reach decisions that are both administratively feasible and politically acceptable. They are therefore keeping those decisions quiet until after the Bill has gone through. Although I reiterate that I trust the Minister personally, I do not trust the Government and I am not at the Dispatch Box in order to trust the Government.
We read in The Times today that,
"The Government will tommorrow defy the European Commission and the House of Lords over the timetable for Britain to meet EC standards on drinking water",
and that,
"Mr. Michael Howard … will tell the Commission that it is impractical for Britain to meet the £10 billion".
I am not simply referring to the issue; I am referring to the fact that Mr. Michael Howard is preparing to do that on the day after the House is asked to pass the Bill. That is what I object to. It is the same principle by which governments—I am afraid that that is all governments—introduce contentious matters at the end July after the House has risen for the summer. But it is a particularly blatant example here of the Government making decisions and having views which they are not prepared to express to Parliament and to have discussed by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, went on to ask for a generous settlement for the new water companies. I appreciate his motives in doing so, but when he asked for interest-free loans I must remind him that the interest will in effect then be paid by the taxpayers and any benefit will go to the shareholders. If that is not a fundamental criticism of the motives and thinking of the Government in putting forward the legislation, I do not know what is.
I reiterate that I have no criticism of the courtesy and integrity of the Minister and his colleagues in the House who have put forward the Bill. But the Bill is a sham as a piece of legislation so far as concerns Parliament and the people of this country. We should not let it go through without expressing our most severe disquiet at the way the matter has been handled. We should not let it go through without drawing the conclusion that, because they

605
are not able to come into the open about those essential matters, there must be something wrong with them. That is what I think is the case and I believe that the people of this country will think that that is the case.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 167.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ampthill, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blease, L.

McNair, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brimelow, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Nicol, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Northfield, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

David, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rugby, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

Vernon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay, L.

Walston, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kearton, L.

Willis, L.

Kennet, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winterbottom, L.

606

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hood, V.

Aldington, L.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allerton, L.

Ironside, L.

Annaly, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Arran, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Balfour, E.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Bellwin, L.

Killearn, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Kitchener, E.

Bessborough, E.

Knutsford, V.

Birdwood, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookes, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caccia, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Caldecote, V.

Middleton, L

Camden, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Moyne, L.

Chelmer, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cottenham, E.

Norrie, L.

Cox, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Onslow, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Forbes, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Forester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seebohm, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Shannon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grantchester, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Southborough, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Haig, E.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Havers, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Holderness, L.

Teviot, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

607

Trafford, L.

Wise, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wolfson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Vinson, L.

Wynford, L.

Westbury, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and the amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a third time disagreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 7 [General duties with respect to water supply and sewerage services]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("or 72") and insert (", 72 or 160").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96. I shall start with the last three amendments. Clause 160 places a duty on water and sewerage undertakers to move pipes in certain cases. At Report stage I undertook to look again at the provision in view of what my noble friend Lady Blatch had said, in particular in relation to the question of security for expenses incurred by the undertaker in connection with carrying out the work and the question of moving pipes in the street. We have considered carefully the industry's concern and are generally satisfied that the provisions of the clause do contain the safeguards that the industry is entitled to expect. We agree, however, that an undertaker should be able to require a person who requests that a pipe is moved to provide security for the work involved. This is the case with requisitioning water mains or sewers and connections to water mains. This is provided for by these amendments.
We also agree that the provisions of the clause should not extend to pipes in streets which are dealt with separately under the provisions of the Public Utilities Street Works Act. This is also provided for by these amendments.
Amendment No. 1 is consequential on the provisions in Clause 160. It provides for the director general to exercise the powers conferred by virtue of Clause 160 in accordance with the provisions of Clause 7. This is the first of the government amendments to meet concerns raised in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not present to thank the Minister. We give our general support to these amendments. In addition, I should like to say that I am delighted to see that the Government are learning from the Opposition about the effective use of paving amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 46, after ("particular,") insert ("that the interests of customers and potential customers in rural areas are so protected and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the passage of this Bill it has been your Lordships' wish to ensure that one class of person is not discriminated against in respect of another class and pay more for their water. If this amendment is approved it would make it a specific duty on the Secretary of State and the director general, when exercising their general duty to ensure that the interests of customers of water companies are protected with regard to fixing and recovery of charges, to make sure that consumers in rural areas are so protected.
Although I and other noble Lords who supported similar amendments earlier in the Bill have, I suppose, had the odd moment of disagreement with the Government, I hasten to say that both my noble friend Lord Caithness (Official Report, 12/6/89; col. 1161) and my honourable friend in another place Mr. Howard in Standing Committee on 21/2/89 at col. 1263, have also agreed with the principle of no discrimination against rural dwellers. Indeed, they both quoted the model instrument of appointment and Clause 7 as being sufficient protection.
Unfortunately, the model instrument is not on the face of the Bill. In fact it was only through the diligence of the Librarian of this House that I unearthed it a few weeks back. In my opinion Clause 7 is made more than vague by Clause 76, and indeed by my old friend Clause 7(2)(b).
As a result of this difference of opinion, my noble friend Lord Caithness and his officials have spent a lot of time and effort with me and with the parliamentary adviser to the National Farmers' Union. I should like to put on record my thanks to all of them, for the outcome has been this amendment which I commend to your Lordships. Perhaps I should explain that my noble friend Lord Caithness persuaded me that in this Bill there were problems in amending Clause 76, which he spelt out very clearly to your Lordships at Committee stage and also at Report stage. I suspect that he will do so again today. I am sure many of your Lordships will wish to query how this amendment will work in practice. I, and perhaps my noble friend, will try to answer those queries when replying.
Finally, I thank those in all parts of the House who kindly put their names to the amendments I moved at earlier stages of the Bill and also all noble Lords who supported them. It was a privilege to experience such support from all parts of the House and I know that that support will be appreciated by all those who live in the country. To those noble Lords who turned up at Report stage expecting a Division I can only say that I had intended to divide the House until my noble friend Lord Caithness made me an offer that I could not refuse. However, having farmed for 30 years near to where Milton lived and married, perhaps I may say to them:
"They also serve who only stand and wait".
I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulated the Minister a moment ago on discovering the use of paving amendments. I now withdraw those congratulations. I think that what he

609
has done is to put in the paving amendment and forget the substantive amendment. That is why I am rising to speak to Amendment No. 31, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 2. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, quoted Milton. I should like to go down market a good way in the poetry stakes and quote Roy Campbell's poem On Certain South African Writers:
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write.
I'm with you there, of course.
They use the snaffle and the bit all right,
But where's the bloody horse?"
I suspect that the problem with this amendment is that it has the makings of a significant concession. I am quite certain it is intended to produce a significant concession, but it is not an adequate one. It does not actually ensure that customers in rural areas will be paying the same price for water as those in urban areas. I would have wished to see the Government accept not only the principle which was urged by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and others at earlier stages—and I understand they are going to do so—but the effects of that principle and to write into Clause 76 (which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, says, is where it should be) a provision that the charges for domestic customers should be,
"at the same level for the same level of service throughout the area supplied or serviced by the undertaker".
That is the full effect of the protection for rural areas. I hope that the Government will accept not only the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, but also my Amendment No. 31.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to add my support very briefly to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Like him, I am much concerned that those who live in rural areas should not, as a result of this Bill, have imposed upon them burdens which are not shared by those living in more highly populated areas.
In supporting the amendment—I am bound to say that I am a flicker in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which is a little more explicit—I should like to say to my noble friend that I also appreciate the courtesy with which he has received these arguments and the attention that he has given to them. I cannot resist the temptation to ask him to be good enough to communicate the ideas that he has had on this Bill to his noble friend who is handling the Electricity Bill in this House. A similar argument applies there and will be brought up again.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend's amendment and also to support that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, because the two seem to go extremely well together. Perhaps the first amendment will be enough on its own, although that must be in some doubt. I hope that when my noble friend comes to sum up this situation he will give us a firm assurance that we cannot accept Amendment No. 31 because in fact rural areas will be protected from what I would term overcharging.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I also am pleased that we appear to be getting near to some resolution of this matter of charges in rural areas. It is very important because the disquiet in rural areas has remained all this time. I should like my noble friend the Minister when he comes to reply to endeavour to make clear to us as regards Amendment No. 2, without Amendment No. 31, exactly what powers the director general will have to stop discrimination against a rural population. That is the one point about which I should like him to be as clear as possible.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, Amendment No. 31 is identical to the one tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley at Report stage. It was discussed with a similar amendment to Clause 37 which was tabled by the noble Lord. The amendment would require that charges schemes made under Clause 76 provide only for charges to be set so that the same level of charge is fixed for the same level of service throughout the area of the undertaker.
At Report stage Amendment No. 31 was put forward by my noble friend to provide protection for rural customers. I think I had persuaded him that the amendment was defective and I hope that the wisdom my noble friend now has will permeate through to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Perhaps I may give him just one example. Thames Water makes a rateable value-based sewage charge of 8.9p per pound of rateable value in the inner area of north London but of 19.5p per pound in Thames western division. This difference of 119 per cent. is intended to allow for the difference in rateable values of similar properties in these two areas to ensure that broadly comparable bills will result. Therefore the net result of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would require very substantial and, I would put it to your Lordships, very unfair increases in water charges in the inner area of London. If those increases take place, there is only one person to blame.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but what we are asking in the amendment is that the charges should be at the same level. I would argue, as he has argued, that the charges in both parts of the Thames Water Authority area are at the same level. The fact that they are levied at a different rate in the pound is neither here nor there.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this was exactly the point I made at Report stage. What does the noble Lord's amendment mean? Does it mean the same level or does it mean the rateable level? It could very well be argued that the pence per pound of rateable value is the level that should be levied. There is the very conundrum that made it so difficult for me to accept the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley and why I am happy to recommend to the House that his revised amendment on Clause 7 is the one that should be accepted because it covers the point that he was so concerned about. I should

611
like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stanley and also to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for their assiduous work in pressing the earlier amendments for protection of rural customers.
The amendment that my noble friend has tabled reinforces the message to the Secretary of State and the director that in considering whether particular charging proposals are unduly discriminating it is right and proper for the director to address particularly whether customers in rural areas are protected. Charges are differentiated now and will always be so. The question is whether such differentiation—that is, discrimination, can be justfied. The director must consider the interests of rural and of course all other customers (but specifically those in rural areas) in deciding to enforce the undue discrimination requirements.
I urge the House to accept Amendment No. 2 and to reject Amendment No. 31.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that statement. It is right—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that as the Bill is written it is still possible to discriminate, as has been mentioned, under Clause 76. But perhaps I might be allowed to give an example of how I believe it would work in practice. If there was thought to be a case of discrimination against some rural dwellers in Little Tooting I would hope that they would bring this to the attention of the local National Farmers' Union secretary, the WI or the new organisation, Rural. On their behalf the organisation concerned would complain to the director stating the amendment. They would also point out the terms of the model instrument. I suppose that if there were no agreement at the end of the day the case could come before the Law Lords in this House. As I understand it—I stand to be corrected—when the Law Lords judge they take into account what Parliament meant and what it tried to say.
Every noble Lord who has spoken, from all sides of the House, supports the fact that there should be no discrimination between rural and town or any other dwellers. Much more important is the fact that the Government have said so—my noble friend at col. 1161 and my honourable friend Mr. Howard at col. 1263. Both have said that in principle the Government are entirely in agreement with there being no discrimination. I see my noble friend on the Front Bench nodding his head. With that I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [General environmental and recreational duties]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 10, after ("architectural") insert ("engineering").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the House will be kind to me as this is perhaps the most modest amendment that could be moved. I am proposing to add one word and one word only. Admittedly, I am proposing to add that one word in
612
two places which adds up to two words or twice the same word. However, it is still a modest addition to the Bill.
As we discussed at earlier stages most of the artefacts are described generally as buildings and sites but these are of an engineering nature rather than architectural, archaeological or even historical. Their main interest is engineering. The water industry is an engineering based industry; architecture, archaeology and so on are subsidiary. I believe that this was recognised by the Government when they took a substantial step forward and proposed that the word "building" in Clause 8 should also include structures. That was a step I welcomed. I am delighted that the Government have recognised engineering to the extent of including the word "structure".
However, I should like the Government to take one further step and include the word "engineering" on the face of the Bill as well as "archaeological, architectural and historic". It is in this case the most important of the four words. I shall illustrate my point briefly with three examples. We might wish to preserve an old pumping station for architectural reasons, although, again, we might not. We might wish to preserve it for historical reasons, or we might not. However, we might reasonably wish to preserve the beam engines contained within it, not for architectural, archaeological or historical reasons, but for engineering reasons. We ought to say so.
I give my second example. Recently in the Royal Docks a new pumping station has been constructed, but not yet opened. I believe it has been handed over to the Thames Water Authority. The very distinguished architects of a small part of it are Richard Rodgers and Partners; the distinguished consulting engineers of the major part of it are Sir William Halcrow. We are unlikely to want to preseve the building at the moment because it is new: in future we may wish to do so. We should consider that only one-sixth of the building is architectural and five-sixths of it engineering based. The architecture stops at ground level because the architect was not permitted below that level. The part above ground level is in the hands of the architect, but the structure is an engineering structure.
Now for my third example. Let us suppose that at some date in the future we wish to preserve the Thames Barrier. The barrier is almost wholly an engineering structure. There is a tiddly little bit of architecture—but not very good architecture—in the parts standing above water level. Nobody would wish to preserve the barrier because of these structures which look rather like Vikings up to their necks in water. We would not preserve the barrier for that reason, but we might possibly wish to preserve it because of its engineering innovations. It is an engineering structure; it is only for that reason that one would wish to preserve it.
I hope that these examples prove the strength of my case. It is not enough to use the blanket word "historical" to cover everything and then to leave the special cases of archaeological and architectural as well. We should add the third special case of engineering, especially in this industry which is so

613
wholly, perhaps entirely, an engineering industry. I throw myself on the mercy of the House. I beg to move this modest amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment; I should briefly like to explain why. Although I sympathise with the idea of trying to preserve engineering work, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has explained, one must move forward with the times. Today a single electric motor replaces a great big steam engine. "Engineering" is not the kind of word we should write into legislation. Very often if these wonderful old steam engines are to be preserved they are better managed and preserved by being moved to a museum.
As I understand the proceedings of your Lordships' House, Amendment No. 3 is to be taken with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 9. If that is the case, and in order to save time, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 5, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 4. While I sympathise with the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I must point out that if his amendment to Amendment No. 4 was agreed to then, according to my understanding, it would mean that the engineering works would be available to the public for inspection.
I know from personal experience of nothing more than the drying machinery on a farm at home that it is very dangerous to have children walking around unless they are carefully supervised. It means that if Amendment No. 5 were accepted the water or sewerage undertaker, or whoever is involved, may have to keep a man employed in the building in order to protect the general public against the risk of hurting themselves on machinery. It is for such reasons that I cannot support the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 would be to extend the access duty under Clause 8(2) to include maintaining facilities for visiting or inspecting buildings, sites and objects of archeological, architectural or historic interest.
We listened with sympathy to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on Report—
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is not the Minister now talking to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 and not to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 are grouped together. To continue, on Report we listened carefully to the noble Baroness's arguments about the importance of public access to our man-made heritage. We concluded that it would be both reasonable and sensible to extend the duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving public access in this manner. As the noble Baroness reminded the House, there is considerable public interest in our man-made heritage and it is right that we should facilitate access to historic buildings and
614
objects, whether for enjoyment or for serious scholarly study. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
The effect of this amendment is simply to make clear that the term "building" when used in Clause 8 includes fixed structures.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I read the amendment as going further than "fixed structures". In earlier debates we referred to the copyright Act as regards fixed structures. I thought that the Government had omitted the word "fixed" in order to include such items as sluices, which by nature are not fixed. I am happy with "structures" and do not need the word "fixed".
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I should like to elaborate on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. In response to amendments proposed by the noble Lord on Report we made clear that it was our intention that dams, pumping engines, aquaducts and other fixed structures should indeed be covered by the duty to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest. This amendment serves to make clear on the face of the Bill that such structures are covered and I commend it to the House.
As regards the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, we regret that we cannot also commend them to the House. They would add a reference to engineering in respect of the building sites and objects in the relevant body's conservation duty and in the new access duty. We do not consider that that is appropriate. The conservation duty will not be relevant to all engineering objects and certainly not to current engineering objects. To the extent that it is relevant it is so only by reason of their historic interest. That point is already covered in the clause as drafted. Of course, items of industrial archaeology can be relatively recent so we do not believe that anything of relevance is lost by not meeting the amendment, which we do not regard as appropriate.
As regards the access duty, our view is that it should apply to historic and other objects and should not cover all the normal engineering works of the undertakers, as would be the effect of the amendments. In these circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships that Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are neither necessary nor appropriate.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I must expresss the most modest disappointment with that reply, which I found to be quite disgraceful. It illustrates the contempt with which engineering is held in this country, and quite improperly so. The noble Earl was right in saying that the word "historic" covers engineering. However, it is true that the word covers architectural, and that is in the Bill. It is also true that it covers archeological, and yet that is in the Bill. There is no reason, in logic or good sense, why engineering should not be recognised in an industry which is almost wholly engineering.
I am wholly dissatisfied with that reply. The remarks made by the noble Earl about the dangers

615
of allowing children into the vicinity of machinery are correct. However, my amendments have nothing to do with allowing children into areas where there is machinery. They are to do with the desirability of doing certain things. They merely add an intellectural dimension to the areas in which the desirability functions. The noble Earl's reply was wholly inadequate, but I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 23, after ("beauty;") insert—
("( ) to have regard to the desirability of maintaining the availability to the public of any facility for visiting or inspecting any building, site or object of archaeological, architectural or historic interest;").
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is, that Amendment No. 4 be agreed to?
Baroness Birk: My Lords, we are delighted and pleased that the Government have moved this amendment. As the noble Earl indicated on Report, it will give access to and covers archaeological, historic and architectural sites. I do not wish to appear churlish but I am sad that a number of other amendments of equal importance—and some which were perhaps more important in the field of archaeology—have been resisted by the Government all the way through our debates on the Bill. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the proposal has been accepted. The amendment is important because without it there would have been the opportunity for access to recreational ground, waters and so forth but not to the ancient monuments, buildings and other areas covered by it.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon may find some consolation in the fact that the amendment moved by the Government, as I understand it, will include industrial machinery, portable antiquities and other areas which come under heritage. Therefore, in that way part of what the noble Lord was trying to achieve will be included.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("the preservation of any such freedom of access") and insert ("any such freedom of access or on the availability of any such facility").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 44, leave out ("an aquatic environment") and insert ("such waters and land").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to point out a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read line 45 and not line 44.
I return to this amendment which I tabled on Report because there was clearly concern on all sides of the House about the wording of Clause 8(4)(b).
616
The Minister said that it was not desirable to extend the duties of the NRA to include conservation of flora and fauna on land as well as water since the NRA would not have any particular expertise in those matters.
However, in practice it is extremely difficult to separate the land from the water. Imagine walking along a river bank or along the side of a reservior. How is it possible to distinguish between life dependent solely on the water and life which uses the land adjacent to it? It is all part and parcel of the same thing. Otters, frogs and eels are examples of mammals, amphibians and fish equally at home in water or on dry land. In practice, the NRA is likely to be involved to a greater or lesser extent in promoting wildlife conservation on land.
Indeed, some of the regional NRA units—for example, Thames—are already advertising for conservation officers who will be involved in habitat enhancement. There is no indication that that should be restricted purely to the aquatic environment. I cannot believe that the NRA will employ conservation officers who are only experts in the aquatic environment. They will surely be trained as regards all matters of flora and fauna.
Clause 8(4) duties are, in any event, subject to a very clear qualification which is that the NRA shall promote conservation and recreation:
"to such extent as it considers desirable".
Therefore, it would not be duty bound to promote the conservation of, for example, badgers as the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, suggested but neither would it be excluded from doing so if it so desired.
My noble friend Lord Renton, who has put his name to this amendment, introduced conservation aspects to the Electricity Act 1957 which in a nutshell required the relevant bodies to have regard to conserving all flora and fauna. While that general duty exists in Clause 8(1), the full scope is omitted in Clause 8(4)(b) in respect of the NRA.
My amendment would ensure the flexibility essential if the NRA is to carry out its conservation duties effectively and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that his amendment is correctly printed in the Marshalled List because the word "an" begins on line 44.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and I should like to support it and my noble friend on the Front Bench has asked me to say that he also supports it. We discussed this matter at a previous stage and my noble friend Lady White spoke very eloquently in support of it. It does not seem logical for paragraphs (a) and (c) to refer to waters and land for recreational purposes whereas paragraph (b) does not. Therefore, I hope that the simple logic of this matter will be clear to your Lordships and that this amendment will be supported because it seems to be very straightforward and I see no reason why the Government should oppose it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness—and we should all be grateful to him—has done splendid work in this Bill in trying to protect the environment. He has very nearly got it right and this amendment would just about perfect it.
In addition to the examples given by my noble friend Lord Norrie, perhaps I may just mention a rather special one which indicates that this amendment really should be accepted. For example, let us take the swallow-tail butterfly. It lives on land and feeds off vegetation on land but that vegetation dies unless the water table is kept at the required level, and the maintenance of the water table at the required level in some places depends on the water authority.
I know of a wood in Huntingdonshire which some years ago lost its swallow-tail butterfly because although it was a period of drought, the people maintaining the fenland waters in the middle level allowed or caused the water table to fall so far that the vegatation on which the swallow-tail butterfly depended died off.
Therefore, this is not just a question of the aquatic environment unless one assumes that an environment which surrounds water is also aquatic. However, I believe that that would be stretching our language rather too far. It would be much better to accept the very simple amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Norrie and supported, I am happy to say, by the noble Baroness. It would cause no burden on the water authorities in the future bearing in mind the particular phrase to which my noble friend referred, because the NRA only needs to do that job to the extent it considers desirable. To put it bluntly, it really would be very narrow minded for the Government not to accept this amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like to add the support of these Benches for this amendment. When I first looked at the amendment I did not think that I should support it because I assumed that aquatic environment would include the land around the water. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just said, the two are so closely linked that it is almost ludicrous to try and separate them. However, I then thought again. I thought that aquatic environment could be far more narrowly defined as merely what is in or in direct contact with the water at a certain level. For example, I could see quite ridiculous arguments about what is the aquatic environment in a tidal river and whether it concerns the level of the river at low or high tide. I suggest that to insert:
"such waters and land"
would be a far safer and more sensible guide.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I hope that it may make it easier for my noble friend to accept this amendment if I point out that some excellent conservation work on river courses and riparian work is already being carried out by the prototype NRA sub-unit of Anglian Water and that the conservation of land associated with "such waters and land" is already very much part of the duty of water authorities as they exist at present. Therefore,
618
the incorporation of these words would in no way add to that responsibility.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. On reading the relevant clause on page 8 of the Bill, it seems to me that the case for it is overwhelming because the NRA staff will be required, when looking at land associated with inland and coastal waters, to conserve and enhance their natural beauty and amenity and to promote their use for recreational purposes. It seems to me extraordinary that subsection (4)(b) should be restricted in a way in which subsections (4)(a) and (4)(c) are not. To my mind it would be absurd that an NRA conservation officer, for example, when dealing with land associated with inland and coastal waters, should be required to conserve a kingfisher because it is dependent on an aquatic environment,. but not a pied flycatcher on that land because it is not. I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said from all quarters of the House and will accept this sensible amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, this amendment applies to Clause 8(4)(b) and the NRA's general duty contained therein to promote the conservation of flora and fuana which are dependent on an aquatic environment. This amendment, in the name of my noble friends Lord Norrie and Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady David, would substitute the words "such waters and land" for the phrase "an aquatic environment".
If we were to accept the amendment it could take the NRA's responsibilities into the protection of flora and fauna which happen to be living on land associated with water though not dependent on it. It seems to us that this would lead to a difficult extension of the NRA's role into matters on which it has no particular expertise and may be ill-prepared to deal with. The important point is that where the Nature Conservancy Council is of the opinion that the flora and fauna which this amendment is designed to protect are of special interest, then it will have to provide for their protection through the establishment of a site of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That, of course, is a designation which is not available in terms of comparability to subsection (4)(c).
Finally, there is one important difficulty. If we use the words "land associated with waters" it could extend into the extremely extensive catchment lands where the protection of flora and fauna would be a difficult role for a body which is, after all, concerned with rivers and other waters. It is for that last reason particularly that we do not feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said and I am disappointed that he does not see the importance of including the conservation of flora and fauna on land within the remit of the NRA. The NRA is to have the duty to promote recreation, the conservation of natural beauty and the amenity of land. All those duties are intricately

619
connected and it is absurd to suggest that the NRA will have no expertise in the conservation of terrestrial flora and fauna. The NRA apparently is to have expertise in all other areas; indeed, it is to have expertise in planning and land use matters. I have already said that the NRA units will in any case have to employ conservation personnel to deal with aquatic flora and fauna.
I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Renton has put his name to my amendment. As I said, he introduced the flora and fauna aspect to the Electricity Act in 1957. I am sure that he is equally disappointed that the Government regard the amendment as unnecessary. The amendment would simply be in line with most of the NRA's duties. It is an important matter and therefore I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hayter, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Alport, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amherst, E.

Hunt, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Attlee, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Banks, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Birk, B.

Leatherland, L.

Blease, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blyth, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brookes, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Mayhew, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Congleton, L.

Moran, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Craigton, L.

Moyne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mulley, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nathan, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Norrie, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Northfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elliot of Hanvood, B.

Peston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rugby, L.

Grey, E.

Salisbury, Bp.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shackleton, L.

620

Shepherd, L.

Underhill, L.

Somers, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Somerset, D.

Walston, L.

Stedman, B.

Whaddon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

White, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Willis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thurlow, L.

Tordoff, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Knutsford, V.

Allerton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Auckland, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Balfour, E.

McFadzean, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Manton, L.

Blake, L.

Margadale, L.

Blatch, B.

Marley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Melville, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Munster, E.

Chelmer, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Newall, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orkney, E.

Daventry, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Derwent, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Erne, E.

Radnor, E.

Enroll of Hale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Forbes, L.

Rees, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharples, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Southborough, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gridley, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stockton, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strange, B.

Haig, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swinfen, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Joseph, L.

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kitchener, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert ("except that no charge shall be made other than a charge which relates to the provision of physical facilities for members of the public, and any such charge shall be levied at a level likely to produce an income over the expected period of operation of the facility commensurate with the expenditure incurred in such provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to issues highlighted at the Report stage. Before that, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, had stated in Committee that he wished to brood on whether Clause 8(6) required amendment. The subsection states that nothing in the Clause 8 environmental duties shall require access to be made available free of charge. In the debate on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, repeated his view, expressed in Committee, that some qualification of the subsection was necessary, possibly along the lines of Amendment No. 74, which had been put forward at that stage. It stated that no facility available as at midnight that night should be charged for thereafter. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made it clear that this was intended to relate to facilities at their existing standards. Subsequent improvements could be the subject of charging.
In resisting the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, argued that authorities did not at present charge for access for informal recreation, such as walking or rambling. Any incidental costs of these tended to be borne through water charges. Where charges were levied these were intended to be for the use of specific facilities. The noble Lord said:
"The balance which is at present struck is that, where specialised facilities are provided, the water authority normally charges the going rate for the use of them. Elsewhere, where it is simply a matter of access for informal recreation, no charge is made. That is the position which can be expected to obtain after privatisation. As we have said many times before, it is impracticable to levy charges for access to the open countryside, mountains and moorland, and the companies have said that they have no intention or wish to try. So far as reasonable, it will still be open to the companies to recover the general costs of performing their recreational duties from their general charges".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 1025.]
As we see it, the problem with the noble Lord's statement is that it is not reflected in the Bill. This amendment seeks to produce precisely that outcome. Purpose-built facilities such as car parks could be the subject of a charge. Access to the open countryside would not be charged. This meets the noble Lord's objection that there was no incentive for a company to invest to improve a facility at present provided free. It fulfils the noble Lord's statement that:
"The prospect of companies seeking to charge for access to the open countryside is remote".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 1025.]
We accepted the force of much of this argument in relation to large areas of land where supervising a charging regime would be impracticable, but pointed to other areas of land where charging could be introduced. The amendment goes further and recognises the need for the cost of new facilities to be met. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh made clear at col. 1027 of the Official Report, the purpose was to avoid new charges for existing facilities which are currently without charge. He expressed himself happy to withdraw the amendment if the Government would give a commitment that no
622
existing facility would be made subject to charging where there had been no improvement in the service. No such assurance was forthcoming.
This amendment recognises the need for change by limiting the amount of charges to the total on an annual test basis attributable to the overall cost of the facility over the period of its operations. In other words, in building or commissioning a car park, the plc would need to project the likely income and usage over a period and charges would be commensurate with the cost incurred. The amendment can be regarded as in two parts. It would be extremely helpful if the Government could give a commitment to limit charges to the provision of physical facilities related to public access. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has just reminded us, this amendment takes us over familiar ground. It has the same weaknesses as similar amendments moved at earlier stages. It is both too wide and too rigid. I put it to the House that the outcome of the amendment would be wholly undesirable. Despite the major efforts made by the noble Lord to meet the comments of my noble friend Lord Hesketh—I pay tribute to him for that—I contend that the amendment would impose unreasonable limitations on the circumstances in which a company may recover its costs directly from those who benefit.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give one example. By providing that no charge shall be made other than a charge which relates to the provision of facilities for members of the public, it would prevent a company from charging a private boating club. That cannot be right. Again, it might well discourage a company from improving its physical facilities as there is no provision for increasing charges to accommodate the costs of such improvements; the level of charges for a facility being fixed for its expected life.
However, the underlying purpose of the amendment is to resurrect once again the question of charging for access to the open countryside, mountains and moorlands, Yet again I must remind the House that to try to levy charges for such access is bound to prove impracticable and unreasonable, and that the companies have said that they have no intention or wish to try. It will still be open to the companies, so far as is reasonable, to recover from their general charges the general costs of performing their recreational duties.
I thank the noble Lord for trying to take on board what my noble friend Lord Hesketh said at earlier stages. However, there are still major drawbacks to the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for what he has had to say about the amendment and for his acknowledgement of the fact that we on this side of the House have tried in he drafting to meet the points raised at previous stages of the Bill by way of objection to the underlying principle in the amendment.
There is a gulf between us. Whereas there is no argument that existing facilities giving access to

623
moorland and the like which the public presently enjoy would continue and any cost of giving that access and maintaining it would be met as now from general charges levied by the plcs, any new facilities would be the subject of charge. So far as I understand the noble Earl's response, he would like to see the plcs allowed, when providing those facilities, to levy charges at such a rate as would not merely reimburse them for the capital cost involved but might in fact give them a handsome profit on the recreational or other facilties provided.
That seems to us to be rather an invitation to the plcs to be somewhat commercially minded in this area. Far from encouraging them to be so, our amendment—inadequately drafted though it may be—seeks to discourage them. It aims to give them a fair reward for what they have done but does not offer an open-ended invitation to increase charges, perhaps annually and so on, so that eventually providing these facilities becomes quite a commercial proposition. To that extent the public would be disadvantaged because people would be contributing in another way to the revenues of the plcs.
For that reason, despite the cordial way in which the Minister replied, I feel that we should test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 136.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Attlee, E.

Hayter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hunt, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Caldecote, V.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

McNair, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monson, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mulley, L.

Ezra, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Falkland, V.

Nathan, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Northfield, L.

Galpern, L.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Peston, L.

Grey, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

624

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Underhill, L.

Rochester, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Walston, L.

Seear, B.

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

White, B.

Shackleton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Willis, L.

Somerset, D.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Winstanley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Allerton, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Bessborough, E.

Killearn, L.

Blake, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Kitchener, E.

Blyth, L.

Knutsford, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Brookeborough, V.

McFadzean, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Margadale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marley, L.

Carnock, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Melville, V.

Chelmer, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Middleton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Moyne, L.

Craigton, L.

Munster, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Daventry, V.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dundee, E.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Erne, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Forbes, L.

Fortescue, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Quinton, L.

Gainford, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rees, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Renton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renwick, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Haig, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Somers, L.

Havers, L.

Southborough, L.

Henley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Stockton, E.

625

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathspey, L.

Wise, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wolfson, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Trafford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 9, line 4, after ("section") insert—
(" "building" includes structure; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Environmental duties with respect to sites of special interest]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 45, at end insert—
("(3A) Where, within three weeks of the completion of consultation under subsection (3) above it appears to the notifying body to be reasonably likely that the consequences referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) of that subsection may occur, the body may refer the matter to the Secretary of State for decision before any such works, operations or activities may proceed, and no such works, operations or activities shall be undertaken or authorised before either—

(a) where no such referral is made, the expiration of the date by which it could have been made; or

(b) where such a referral is made, the determination of the matter by the Secretary of State").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 11. Both amendments are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. These amendments reflect continuing concern over the balance of powers contained in Clause 9, which deals with sites of special interest, as identified by the Nature Conservancy Council, or sites within a national park or the Broads. Such bodies have the power to identify areas of special interest, in respect of which Clause 8 has particular importance, and to notify the water plc of the importance of those sites.
When work is undertaken in those areas which may destroy or damage any flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features, the plc is required to notify the NCC, the park authority or the Broads Authority.
The main problem with the notification procedure which the Government introduced into Clause 9 in Committee is that the decision is made by the plc as to whether or not works, operations or activities may be damaging.
On Report, my noble friend Lord McIntosh moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 which were designed to give the notifying authority, as well as the plc, the right to make the judgment as to the level of damage. Furthermore, the notifying authorities would have had the right, after consultation, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for decision as to whether operational works should proceed where there was no agreement on the question. As regards the latter amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made
626
only one criticism; namely, the need for a time limit within which the reference should be made. More generally, he pointed in respect of both amendments to the conservation duties contained in Clause 8.
The argument about Clause 8 is essentially a non sequitur as the notification process would hardly be necessary in the first place if the actions of plcs were adequately safegarded by Clause 8. More specifically, the main amendment now tabled seems to deal with the issue of time limits and puts forward an alternative method of improving the notification process. All that is by way of background.
The first of the two amendments would provide that where the plc had informed the notifying body of the existence of works, the body would have the power, within three weeks of the completion of the consultation process, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State where it considered that damage was likely to result. The works would be suspended pending either the exploration of the three-week date, or, where a referral had been made, the determination of the matter by the Secretary of State. In other words, the amendment builds in only a limited additional time requirement to that already accepted by the Government in their redrafted Clause 9. The purpose is still somewhat to redress the balance between the plc and the notifying authority.
Amendments tabled on Report which sought to give the notifying authority the right to make the judgment alongside the plc as to whether works were damaging have been dropped. Instead, the more limited suggestion is put forward that the reserve power to refer to the Secretary of State should be available to the notifying authority once it has been informed of works which the plc judges to be damaging. That is regarded as a less satisfactory alternative in that some works could proceed without the notifying authority receiving information about them. It can only be hoped, at least in relation to major works, that the notifying authority would be aware of forthcoming works and would be able to encourage consultation on them.
The second amendment directly addresses the question of notification. It provides that the plc should (in respect of works, operations, or activities covered by the clause) consult the notifying body in the prescribed manner where the notifying body so requests. That would be most likely to arise where the plc did not necessarily consider that the necessary level of damage would result, but the notifying authority was concerned to establish the basis of the proposals and sought consultation on them before the works were commenced.
The amendment highlights an issue which Clause 9 does not satisfactorily address; namely, what happens if the plc does not consider that damage or prejudice to Clause 8 duties is likely to flow from works in the manner described in subsection (3). The Government should think carefully about the provision. One would have thought that the last thing they wanted would be (possibly through mistake or optimistic assumptions about the effect of a particular proposal) for work to go ahead in a national park or in the Broads on which there was no consultation and which led subsequently to public

627
controversy as to its effect on the natural environment. The amendments not merely seek to aid the cause which I plead, but provide sound advice and good government. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the amendments would introduce new procedures in the case of SSSIs and national parks. For simplicity, I shall confine my response to the case of national parks although the points apply with equal force to SSSIs.
Clause 9 imposes on the relevant bodies (that is the undertakers and the NRA) a duty to consult national park authorities on operations or decisions likely to affect areas of land within national parks which the park authorities have notified to the relevant bodies. The duty supplements the general environmental duties of the relevant bodies in the particularly sensitive circumstances of national parks in two ways.
First it provides a notification procedure so that the attention of relevant bodies is firmly drawn to those areas where the operation of those duties may be particularly important; secondly, it ensures that there is an additional element of consultation in respect of any operations which might adversely affect those areas.
It also has the further effect of injecting a second opinion—the national park authority—into the relevant body's policy formulation and decision-making. The procedure is a trip-wire which ensures that the relevant bodies are warned and advised on the performance of their duties in particular cases.
The question is whether we should go further, and take the decision in those cases where there is not agreement between the park authority and the relevant body out of the hands of the relevant bodies and place it with the Secretary of State. We think that that is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because the relevant bodies are bound to have the fullest regard for what the park authorities say: their Clause 8 duties operate very obviously and clearly in those cases and the performance of those duties must be enforced by the Secretary of State.
It is also inappropriate, however, because it would take out of the hands of the relevant bodies the decision as to how they performed their duties and place it with the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will agree that that is wrong. The better course is, as we propose, to leave the relevant bodies to perform their duties, and use enforcement powers if they fail.
Finally, if we followed that course we would in effect replace a framework encouraging consultation and co-operation by one which imposed formalised procedures and could rapidly lead to transfer of responsibility to the Secretary of State. Such involvement could become heavy and continuous. We think it is better to leave decision with the local bodies, with suitable enforcement powers in reserve.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, may not entirely agree with our conclusion, but I hope that he will
628
accept that our objectives are not far apart and that we have, as he requested, considered carefully the points he has made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin where the Minister left off. We are satisfied that the Minister and his colleagues have carefully considered what he said because I know that he wants to satisfy interested bodies that they will be fully consulted. He can take it from me that the last thing that we want to do is to allow the Secretary of State to have a greater say in more matters than he already has. We do not lightly make the Secretary of State a referee in this or any other matters—and "referee" is not a reference to a Bill that is being debated in another place at the moment.
The question of the ability of interested parties to resolve the matters is fairly dealt with. We have painted a scenario where it is possible (not for underhand or mischievous purposes) to find that some decisions are taken which the plc does not believe to be worthy of consultation because it does not consider that they are important. However, they could be seen by others to be important, but then it would be too late. Like many other things in the Bill we need to see what happens. I am satisfied that the Minister has gone as far as he can. We shall have to wait to see whether we come back in a few years' time and say, "We told you so". In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Codes of practice with respect to environmental and recreational duties]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 26, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("relevant Minister").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 12 and with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 15, 24, 29, 36, 40, 41, 53 to 56 en bloc, 59, 61, 64, 65 to 70 en bloc, 75, 76, 77, 78, 102, 103, 104, 105, 110, 111 and 112, 122, 136, 137, 138, 139, 147 and 148 to 151 en bloc.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend proceeds any further, it seems that he has departed from the grouping. I wonder whether he could give us any help as to how that arises and what will happen to the amendments which have been grouped differently from the way in which he dealt with them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to that, I should like to say that I only noticed half way through that he was departing from the grouping. I had planned to give notice that in my view this grouping of all the amendments which are described as "transitional or technical" is not satisfactory to the House. They are not related in subject; they are only being grouped together on the grounds that the Government think that they are not controversial. If we recall what the Government thought about Amendment No. 135, which was the one which gives a 12-month moratorium to undertakings for freedom from prosecution for

629
breaches of river water quality, we realise that this is not satisfactory.
I am not sure that I followed the whole of the list which the noble Earl read out, but I wish to give him notice that I shall expect him to move and to speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 111, 122, 136 to 139 and 141. I believe that they may well raise issues of which the House ought to be aware. Would the noble Earl like me to repeat those numbers? I believe that I notified the Government Whips of them. They were: Amendments Nos. 54, 59, 111, 122, 136 to 139 and 141. Some of them may have been taken out of the grouping already, which may solve the problem. However, these matters are of substance and ought to be debated.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister included Amendment No. 103. I wonder whether he intended to do so because it stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is quite correct and I did refer to Amendment No. 103. However on reflection I feel that that is not correct and I apologise for it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 104 is in a similar situation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that Amendment No. 104 should not be moved in these circumstances.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, does the noble Earl wish to move Amendment No. 12? That is all he is in a position to move. He cannot move any other amendment at this juncture.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes, I have moved Amendment No. 12.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders for securing compliance with certain provisions]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 24, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) A notice served or published under subsection (6) above shall set out the reasons for the decision of the Secretary of State or the Director under subsection (5) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment merely provides information. Effectively, a notice from the Secretary of State or the director that an order will not proceed under Section 20 could at present simply state that it is not intended to take the matter any further. The person should certainly have a reference to the reasons why something is not to be taken further and thus have the foundation for the decision. Effectively, the amendment is to try to clarify the situation because there is no reason why someone should not have this information. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, under Clause 20 the Secretary of State or the director is required to make
630
enforcement orders when an appointed company is in contravention of its duties. Where a contravention is found to be trivial, or the company has undertaken to carry out a programme of remedial action, or the duties imposed on the Secretary of State or the director by Part I of the Bill preclude it, a final order or provisional order need not be made or confirmed.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The notice required to be published under subsection (6) of the clause will explain that the Secretary of State or director has decided not to proceed with enforcement action for one of the three reasons set out in subsection (5); for example, that the contraventions are trivial. The reason for not taking enforcement action will therefore be stated in the notice. If it is considered that the decision of the Secretary of State or director is unreasonable it may be challenged in the courts. It is for the preceding reasons that we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having heard what the Minister has said, I am not completely happy. However, he has met many of the points which were raised. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [The Director's register]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 38, line 27, at end insert—
("(f) every direction issued in pursuance of subsection (3) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose here is to ensure that interested people have the right to know that they have been excluded from the register. An empty register would be a source of considerable frustration and might involve waste of time and money as people tried to find out what had happened. A precedent appears in Clause 116(1)(b) on page 127 where the Secretary of State has issued a certificate that certain matters may be excluded from the pollution register. The certificate still has to be entered into the register. The same principle can surely be applied here. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Clause 31 requires the director general to maintain a register of key documents and decisions relating to the appointments of water and sewerage undertakers. The register will hold details of appointments, variations and terminations of appointments and of modifications of conditions of appointment. It will also contain details of directions, consents and determinations given and enforcement orders made by the director, and of undertakings given by the appointed companies under Clause 20.
Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to direct the director not to include in the register any entry where he considers inclusion would be against the public interest. Amendment No. 14 would amend subsection (2) so that any such direction by the Secretary of State would itself have to be included in the register.

631
The provision for registers and for entries to be withheld in the public interest is well precedented. The Government have accepted in earlier debates that we should not blindly follow precedent and we should be ready to justify the intention in its present content, just as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has made his case.
Here we believe that the case is clear cut, indeed almost self-evident. If it is not in the public interest to disclose an entry, the direction not to disclose the entry is likely itself to disclose the matter which it is not in the public interest to disclose. This might for example include directions concerning precautionary measures in the interest of national security. I would not expect the powers to be used frequently or lightly but where they are used I am sure the House would want to do nothing which might breach the necessary confidentiality. It is for these reasons that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having listened to the Minister, again I am not happy—perhaps a little less happy even than on the last amendment. However, once again I feel that the answer has met many of the points, or at least some of the more fundamental material, of the amendment. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Financial conditions for water main requisition]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 48, line 22, leave out ("direction") and insert ("determination").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Duty to supply water for domestic purposes]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 53, line 23, after ("building") insert ("together with any land occupied with it").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a new amendment but it has precedents. There are several points in the Bill where the word "premises" has been expressly modified by government amendments, for example, in Clause 42(3)(b)(ii) and in Clause 52(2). The effect of these amendments has been to avoid unfortunate consequences if the word "premises" referred only to a building or to a part of a building. The same phenomenon recurs in Amendment No. 112 which we passed over rather transiently a moment or two ago. Perhaps we shall return to that amendment later this evening, as an amendment to Schedule 10.
The effect of these amendments is that the word "premises" will, in such cases, embrace both the building and any land which is occupied with it. Despite requests from the Water Authorities Association and others that this wider meaning of the word should be extended to other appropriate clauses, there has not been consistency in the Bill,
632
or in Clause 45. This clause describes circumstances in which the undertaker:
"shall owe a domestic supply duty".
The present wording contains the inference that the duty is to supply the building in question, notwithstanding circumstances in which the responsibility for part of the service pipe crossing land to reach the building rests with the customer. If there should be defects or damage in this part of the pipe before it reaches the building, the undertaker is wholly reliant on the defence contained in subsection (8) of this clause, as having taken:
"all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence".
That defence is inappropriate when no amount of care or diligence or reasonableness on the part of the undertaker can remedy the fact that he has no control, as an undertaker, over part of the means of supply between the building and the stopcock running over the land. That distance can sometimes be quite great. This amendment is designed to attempt to dispel confusion or uncertainty regarding the extent of the undertaker's domestic supply duty, resulting from a failure in Clause 45 to define the word "premises" comprehensively in accordance with the definition that appears elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I get the impression from this amendment that it could involve the undertaker in standpipes in, say, a garden. I am not sure that that is desirable.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, Clause 45 defines the circumstances in which a water undertaker owes a domestic supply duty to particular premises. Clause 50 gives an undertaker the right in certain circumstances to require the provision of separate service pipes to provide a supply of water to separately occupied premises. Clause 51 sets out the requirements on undertakers in respect of the constancy and the pressure of water supplied to those premises.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 16, 18 and 19 is apparently to seek to clarify the provisions of these clauses by specifying that they relate to premises comprising buildings and land occupied with buildings, rather than just the buildings. I have to say that if the provisions of each of these clauses are considered closely, it is clear that this is not in fact the case. The water supply duty, the power to require separate service pipes and the constancy and pressure requirements all relate to the supply of water to a building, rather than to a building and associated land.
If I understand my noble friend Lord Cranbrook correctly, he is concerned that, under the provisions of these clauses, an undertaker could be considered to be in breach of the duty to supply water for domestic purposes and the requirements in respect of constancy and pressure of supplies if a problem with that part of the service pipe for which the consumer is responsible leads to a failure to supply water to a building on the premises. This concern, however, fails to take account of the provisions of

633
Clauses 45 and 51. An undertaker is required to provide a constant supply of water at the required pressure to the consumer's premises, that is the building occupied by the consumer. An undertaker which fails to comply with these duties is open to legal action. In any proceedings brought against an undertaker, the clauses provide for an undertaker to show in its defence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the breach of the duty.
In any proceedings brought against the undertaker for failing to comply with its duty or meet the requirements placed upon it, an undertaker would be able to show that it had taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence if the water, in that part of the service pipe for which it was responsible, was sufficient to supply the building at the required pressure.
In circumstances where a breach of the supply duty or a failure to meet the constancy and pressure requirements was due solely to a failure in that part of the service pipe for which the consumer is responsible, the undertaker would clearly be able to show that it had taken all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid breaching the duty or failing to meet the requirement. I hope with those words that I have been able to demonstrate to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that there is no reason for him to press his amendments.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is very important for the undertaker to pay attention and to take note of those words which occurred towards the end of the speech of my noble friend, when he said very clearly that no court of law would consider the undertaker to be at fault if anything was to happen in that part of the service pipe which does not belong to the undertaker but to the customer. The essential point of the amendment was to make it absolutely clear that there is a section of the service pipe which is not under the control of the undertaker, and for which he cannot therefore be held responsible as regards any damage or anything that goes wrong in that service pipe which causes a failure to supply water at the correct pressure, or under other appropriate conditions, to the building at the end of that pipe. Provided that my noble friend's words are absolutely clear, I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Powers to disconnect service pipes and cut off supplies]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 60, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 22 and insert ("without restoring that supply before the end of the period of twenty-four hours beginning with the time when it is cut off, the undertaker shall, no later than forty-eight hours after that time, serve notice that it has cut off that supply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 meets a commitment I gave to my noble friend Lady Blatch on Report. Clause 49 currently requires a water undertaker to notify the relevant local authority of all disconnections made to inhabited
634
houses within 48 hours of the disconnections taking place. The noble Baroness was concerned that undertakers would be required to notify local authorities even of disconnections lasting no more than an hour or so. In many cases the notification would not take place until well after the supply had been restored. Amendment No. 17 provides that undertakers will only be required to notify local authorities of disconnections lasting longer than 24 hours. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing this amendment to the House. As I said when I pressed my own amendment, most cut-offs occur within the 24-hour limit. I think this provision will eliminate a large number. of occasions when local authorities would have to be notified. I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not opposed to this amendment, but I must express my regret that the Government have not found it possible to agree to the more important amendments which we moved about notification of disconnection. Those amendments would have ensured that the customer service committees were notified of disconnections, in particular for reasons of non-payment of bills, and, at any rate, even if individual disconnections were not notified, that there would be a statistical analysis of disconnections for that purpose. If the customer service committees are to do their job properly, they must know what is happening as regards disconnections in order to be sure that the disconnections code is being adhered to. As I say, I do not resist this amendment, but the other amendments would have been much more important and more welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to require separate service pipes]:
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Duty as respects constant supply and pressure]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 66, line 20, leave out ("water undertaker") and insert ("any person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 to 22 and also to Amendment No. 28, which is not exactly on the same subject, but which can, for convenience, be debated with the other amendments. These amendments are concerned with private supplies. Lest it is thought that private supplies are insignificant, let me remind the House that according to Environmental Health, the journal of the environmental health officers. there are approximately 80,000 private supplies in this

635
country. There are 450,000 regular users of water from private supplies, and there are probably 2 million occasional users of private supplies.
The European Commission funded a study of private supplies in Calderdale and found that 3 per cent. of the population there were connected to private supplies. That figure was surprising because it is very much higher than the national average and there was no reason to suppose that it would be. Of those private supplies 88 per cent. exceeded the European Commission's maximum admissible content of extraneous materials and 48 per cent. contained faecal contamination. Clearly it can be a problem; it is not merely a theoretical point.
I remind the House that European Community Directive 87/78, which has been the subject of debate in the House, does not distinguish between private supplies and public supplies. Any regulations for public supplies will eventually have to apply to private supplies as well. In April of this year the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, wrote in a Written Answer that the Government are proposing to the European Commission a 10 year timetable for bringing private suplies into line with the European Commission directive. However, the department itself, as evidenced by a letter which it sent to local authorities in 1987, has no reason to suppose that the European Commission will agree to that 10 year period. Even if it does, the department believes that there will have to be monitoring every two years, and in a letter to local authorities of 26th August 1987 asked local authorities to take part in that monitoring process.
Clearly, not only does the European Commission believe that this is an important matter, the Government think it is an important matter and the Department of the Environment thinks it is an important matter. That is why we return to it at Third Reading. We also do so because, in my view, our amendments at Report stage were pretty heavy. They were overbearing in a number of ways.
Those amendments required that private suppliers should apply for appointment as water undertakings and that the Secretary of State would then grant them an exemption from the conditions. The amendments also provided that private suppliers could not compete with water authorities to supply, for example, new housing estates. I am told that that pleased the Water Authorities Association, although it was not intended to. On reflection, both of those appeared to us to be bad ideas. We believe that we have brought forward better amendments at this stage. The noble Earl thinks that that is funny; when he apologises for his mistakes, as I do, I shall take care to laugh at him.
Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 relate to Clause 54, which concerns the offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption. The three amendments would secure that any person—including private suppliers—can be guilty of an offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption on the same basis as water undertakings. They provide the same protection for consumers against being supplied with water which is unfit for human consumption
636
wherever they live in the country. That is an important element of justice for water consumers throughout the country.
Amendment No. 28 solves some of the problems raised by our amendments at Report stage by giving the Secretary of State the power to set regulations which would prescribe standards of performance and to set out any requirements he thinks necessary about the supply, pressure, recovery of charges, etc. It would extend to the customers of private suppliers the same conditions with regard to the necessity for a continuous supply at an adequate pressure, the same disconnections code, provisions on metering, leakages, overcharging, etc.,which will be available to the customers of the appointed water undertakings. Again, that seems to us to be a matter of equity and justice for all water consumers throughout the country. Once the matter has been drawn to the attention of the House, as it was, however inadequately, at Report stage, we think that the Government ought to recognise the justice of the case.
We are encouraged to think that the Government have recognised the justice of the case, because the Lord Advocate, when replying to Scottish amendments on 13th June at the end of the Report stage, said that:
"Water which is not fit for human consumption should never be supplied to the public … neither south nor north of the Border can anyone afford to be complacent"—[0fficial Report, 13/6/89; col. 1370]
He went on to say, in the context of hoping that it would not be his responsibility to institute prosecutions against suppliers for breaching those rules, that:
"Their consumers, the general public, deserve nothing less";
in other words, nothing less than the same protection against unfit drinking water.
I hope that the House and the Government will feel that we have moved towards correcting a wrong which had not previously been identified. I am grateful to those in the National Consumer Council who first drew it to our attention. I believe that we now have amendments which give the Secretary of State powers to make reasonable provision. Obviously he will not want to deal with small supplies from individual farmers to tenants and neighbours, but there is reasonable provision to protect the half million inhabitants of this country who rely on private supplies and are, in justice, entitled to the same protection as those who are customers of the water authorities or the appointed water undertakings. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned by the amendments. If Amendment No. 22 were accepted subsection (3) would read:
"In any proceedings against any water undertaker for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for that person to show that he … took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence for securing that the water was fit for human consumption".
That is very nice. It protects the water undertaker, but it does not protect the private individual.

637
Turning to Amendment No. 28, I am concerned personally. Clause 54 is repeated almost word for word in paragraph 76C of Schedule 22. As I have already explained to your Lordships, I am a private supplier of water. However, I have no control over the pressure because the water comes from a spring. I do not know whether that spring will continue or not. The only guarantee I have is that there has been no trouble in the past 120 years.
Paragraph (f) of the amendment states that regulations may:
"provide for the payment of compensation in respect of a breach of any regulation under this section".
That could place me in a very difficult position indeed because I do not make any charge for the water. I have no desire to do so. However, reading the amendment I have a feeling that any small undertaker, particularly in England and Wales, will have to make some charge. The Secretary of State may approve or disapprove of that under the proposed clause, but I do not think that that is the sort of thing with which we want to be bothered. I am sure that I speak for many people in the same position. It involves a great deal of book-keeping that we do not want.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, perhaps I may also declare an interest in that I survive on a private supply and am hoping to God at the moment that the spring does not run out!
I have much sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has said. Obviously, it is only right that water that is consumed by those who have a private supply must be fit for consumption. But if we are not careful—I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has watered down the amendment to some extent—we shall cause all sorts of problems in the countryside because landlords, farmers and others who out of courtesy—I am sure that that is the case on the noble Earl's estate—provide people with a supply of water that is not otherwise available to them, will cut it off. I do not say that the noble Earl would do that, but I can see many people in the farming world who would say, "This is too big a thing for me to administer. I am not prepared to allow myself to be prosecuted for this, that and the other". Somehow the pipe would suddenly be broken and not replaced. That will lead to all sorts of problems.
It is not a simple matter and I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl said. I should certainly find it gravely inconvenient if my supply were suddenly cut off. I have good relations with my next-door neighbour. The pipe burst the other day and we had no supply at all for over 24 hours, but he repaired it and did not charge for it. I think that this is a difficult area in which to legislate and I hope that the Minister will agree with that.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, perhaps I may support the previous two speakers. One is concerned about the attempts to raise the purity and general standard of water and about the introduction of controls. But, while the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested to
638
us that there would be a waiver in the case of small farms and tourist houses—I put the words in his mouth—in remote rural areas, one can see the regulations being applied insidiously further and further down the line to arrangements where the supply and control of water is more in the hands of nature than it is in the hands of the farmer or the current owner, particularly in the years of drought.
I should therefore like the noble Lord to expand on how he believes that the regulation will not be applied with its full rigour to those casual and small users, farmers and holidaymakers in remote areas where the water supply is extremely erratic at any time. As previous speakers have implied, to bring the full rigours of the law into the matter could only result in the supply being withdrawn. Surely that is not what anyone wants to see.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not be put off by the thought that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has no control over the pressure at which water comes out of the spring. I am quite sure that he is right. He has no control over that, but ensuring water at a proper pressure is not the point. That comes from the noble Earl or anyone else taking water from the spring or wherever and putting it into a suitable tank or receptacle at a suitable height. It is from that height that the pressure comes. There is no difficulty of any kind in applying regulations to that situation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has developed arguments that he first put forward at Report stage in relation to the licensing of supplies. But I must say that, notwithstanding the major attempts that he has made to alter his amendment—I credit him for that—our objections in principle to a farther tier of regulations for private supplies remain.
In our view, it would be quite unjustifiable to take arbitrary powers to change existing agreements under which private supplies are made, particularly where there is no evidence of customer complaints for the sort of contingency for which the amendment would provide. Among the reasons why private supplies are sometimes preferred to public supplies is the fact that they can often be of minimal cost and in some cases even free. Should the opposite situation of excessive charging or disconnection for non-payment ever arise, there would be every incentive on the householders concerned to consider obtaining supplies from the appointed water undertaker. There might be scope for competition for private industrial water suppliers and the discipline that imposes on charging and the other terms and conditions of supply.
However, for any significant new green field site housing development, the domestic supplier would be expected by house purchasers to be a water undertaker because, as I said at Report, the power of undertakers will be needed to provide the necessary infrastructure and because customers will expect the certainty that goes with requiring services from the appointed undertaker.

639
If the fears that lie behind the amendment had any justification, the new customers or their mortgagees would, in the case of a major new development to which I have referred, check very carefully to ensure that the water supply was by a water undertaker and, if not, to see that safeguards were there in any agreement with a private supplier. In those circumstances, there would be every reason for the private supplier to become a new undertaker. Clause 12(2)(c) provides for variation of appointments in areas where the undertakers currently serve as customers so that a different company could be appointed.
In so far as the amendments relate to the quality of private supplies—which is something that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stressed—I can assure noble Lords that the Bill already contains perfectly adequate provisions for ensuring that private supplies are wholesome. The regulations shortly to be made under Clause 65, laying down standards of wholesomeness, will apply just as much to private supplies as they will to mains supplies. Local authorities will have new powers under Clauses 57 to 59 to ensure that the private supplies comply with those regulations.
In our view, it would not be appropriate to apply the criminal offence in Clause 54 to private supplies. There are few private water supplies run on a commercial basis. More commonly, the private supply is on the premises of the person supplied. We do not think that it would be a crime for a person to drink from his own well. In other cases, the private supply may be provided free of charge to neighbours, as my noble friend Lord Balfour generously provides.
The arrangements under which those supplies are provided are many and various. In those cases where the quality of the supply is governed by the terms of a contract or agreement, the person supplied could take action against the supplier for breach of the contract or agreement. He may be able to sue for damages if he suffers any injury or loss as a result of the negligence of the supplier.
We are at one with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in agreeing that the most important need is to ensure that such water is not supplied. For that, there is a longstanding power for local authorities to ask a magistrates' court to close down or restrict the use of water from a polluted source. That power is contained in Section 140 of the Public Health Act 1936. Where the water is so polluted as to be prejudicial to health, it enables a local authority to ask a court to issue a summons to the owner of such a source. After hearing the summons, the court may make whatever order it considers necessary to prevent injury or danger to the health of those using the water.
Agreement on the principle is, therefore, not in doubt, but the method of achieving the objective causes a difference between the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and ourselves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that there have been a number of misunderstandings about the amendments, particularly among noble Lords opposite. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, seems
640
to think that something in the amendment would require him to charge for the water that he supplies. Indeed, he said that at Report stage with regard to similar amendments. He has been wrong on both occasions. There is nothing in the amendment that would require, encourage or even make it advisable or necessary for him to charge for his supply to his neighbours.
The other point that seems to have been missed is that the criminal sanctions in Clause 54 apply only to the very limited definition of water that is unfit for human consumption. The Minister has reminded us of the Public Health Act 1936 and the provisions in it for local authorities, and he is quite right. But, if that is the case, it is difficult to see why Clause 54 is in at all unless it adds something to the 1936 Act. If it adds something, then surely the added protection that it provides should be available to all customers, not just to the customers of the authorities.
So far as concerns all other aspects, including such matters as pressure, charging, metering and so on, I remind the House that Amendment No. 28 provides only for the possibility of the Secretary of State making regulations. Clearly, in making those regulations the Secretary of State will have regard to the points which have been raised by noble Lords and will not make regulations for very small groups of people. The amendment provides that he can make different regulations for different groups of people. And it specifically provides that the regulations shall not be more onerous than they would be for water undertakings.
I am therefore not satisfied with the response. I do not think that adequate protection has been given to the people—nearly half a million of them—who are concerned. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of the regulations under Clause 65 and indeed of other regulations to increase protection for customers or users of private supplies. In that spirit I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 66, line 41, leave out ("or the Director of Public Prosecutions") and insert ("the Director of Public Prosecutions or a constable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to a subject to which I referred at both Committee and Report stages; namely, the right to bring prosecutions when water is unfit for human consumption. At present those allowed to bring prosecutions are the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions. We think that that is too narrow. We proposed initially that local authorities should be allowed to bring such prosecutions. When that proposal was rejected we stated at Report stage that in our opinion it should be the consumer councils; once again, our suggestion was rejected.
We now suggest that it should be the responsibility of the police. I believe that the police are an excellent choice: they enforce the law and make sure that those

641
who break the law are caught. Someone who provides water that is unsafe and may do damage could effectively be committing a type of assault. That may be stretching a point; if so I am sure that the lawyers present will correct me. However, I believe that we should give to some wider body the power to bring prosecutions. It is a simple issue but one potentially of great importance that could have wide consequences. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. The question of water being unfit for human consumption arises in some people's minds. I must confess that for years I have drunk tap water all over the United Kingdom and have reached the age of 80 without any ill effects. On the other hand some people take one sip of a glass of water from anywhere and say, "Oh dear! This is not fit for human consumption. We must tell the local police".
We cannot expect people responsible for this matter to deal with a large number of unnecessary prosecutions. It is far better that we should stick to the Bill as it is. Either the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions should be the ones—the only ones—with the responsibility for initiating prosecutions.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would enable a police constable, in addition to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Secretary of State, to prosecute a water undertaker for supplying water unfit for human consumption.
The amendment would not actually achieve anything very different from what is already in the Bill. Although a police constable could institute proceedings under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Director of Public Prosecutions would thereafter have to decide whether or not to continue those proceedings before the courts. The addition of these words would hardly therefore broaden the subsection as prosecution would still be directly subject to DPP control. In both cases the DPP would be responsible for deciding whether to proceed with prosecution. But what the amendments could do is result in a delay in the department and the Secretary of State hearing about a serious breach of an undertaker's responsibilities while a local police force investigates it and prepares the case for submission to the DPP. That is the last thing that we would want.
I was very grateful for the learned words of my noble friend Lord Renton who put so lucid a case that it is our belief that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will not be able to resist withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has not been damaged by drinking tap water. The fact remains that there is the distinct possibility that he could be damaged one day. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that wide access is given to people who feel that damage has been done to them. I agree that there is always a slight danger that one or two lunatics will 'phone up the police. I suggest however that the
642
police have to deal with dozens of such people anyway and have more than adequate experience of dealing with them.
The aim of the amendment is to give consumers wider access for making a complaint it' they feel that damage has been done to them. I suggested earlier that local authorities should be able to bring a charge. That amendment was withdrawn. It was then suggested that consumer councils would be appropriate bodies. That amendment was also withdrawn. I do not feel that we can again withdraw our proposal. This time it must be pressed. I feel that there should be a wider body capable of dealing with this matter. I shall ask the opinion of the House.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 119.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Attlee, E.

McNair, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blease, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nelson, E.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Raglan, L.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rochester, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, B.

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Msinsfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Willis, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blake, L.

Allerton, L.

Blatch, B.

Alport, L.

Blyth, L.

Arran, E.

Boardman, L.

Auckland, L.

Borthwick, L.

Balfour, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Belstead, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Bessborough, E.

Brookes, L.

643

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kimball, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Kitchener, E.

Caithness, E.

Knutsford, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chelmer, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Manton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Margadale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Morris, L.

Craigton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dundee, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Eccles, V.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elibank, L.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fortescue, E.

Portsmouth, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Radnor, E.

Gainford, L.

Rees, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glenarthur, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sharples, B.

Gridley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Somerset, D.

Grimthorpe, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Haig, E.

Stockton, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vinson, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Joseph, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 71, line 5, at beginning insert ("may").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 73, line 1, after ("may") insert ("on the recommendations of the Director").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 26. These amendments are different versions—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is the noble Lord speaking also to Amendment No. 27?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Yes, I am speaking to Amendment No. 27 as well. With these amendments
644
we return to the issue of drinking water quality assessors under Clause 60, which has been the subject of debate both at Committee stage and Report stage. However, these are significantly different amendments. They do not seek dramatically to change the location of the assessors for the enforcement of drinking water quality. Amendment No. 25 involves the Director General of Water Services in the appointment of the technical assessors for water quality. Amendment No. 26 sets out more clearly than the clause at present sets out the functions of the assessors. Amendment No. 27 specifies that the powers and duties of the assessors shall apply to private supplies as though those supplies were provided by an undertaker.
These amendments are of considerable importance, not so much because the Government do not recognise the necessity for the technical assessment of drinking water quality but because the method by which they are proposing to achieve that is both bureaucratic and centralised. We have heard how the Government propose that those concerned shall be centrally appointed and centrally recruited. We have not heard any significant concession to the argument we put, that the technical assessment of water quality is essentially a local matter, and although standards must be set centrally the actual assessment—I nearly said "on the ground" but that would have been quite inappropriate—must be carried out at local level.
This applies particularly to the functions which we set out in Amendment No. 26. There is the monitoring of the compliance with regulations on drinking water quality; and although the publication of an annual report of course ought to be central, advice to the Secretary of State and the director on breaches of water quality regulations is hardly possible unless the assessors are actually there to observe and monitor the breaches. An overall decline in drinking water quality is of course a central matter and is produced by collating evidence from the local activities of the assessors. The monitoring of improvement programmes is also a local matter and the making of arrangements with local authorities is clearly a local matter. So in the amendments we are not now claiming that the technical assessors should be appointed purely locally and controlled purely locally. We accept that there is a mixture of functions between central and local functions. We hope that by specifying it in this way and specifying that the Director General of Water Services will have a say in it, we shall achieve both a clearer definition of the responsibilities of the assessors and a clearer division between the local functions and the central functions, as I have set them out. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not see how the Government could reasonably accept these worthy amendments. The motive behind them is sound and sensible, but their content is already covered in effect by the terms of the Bill. If I may give an example, in Clause 60 under the side note
"Assessors for the enforcement of water quality"
we find that a person appointed shall carry out such investigations as the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of advising him as to whether, and

645
if so in what manner, the various powers mentioned in Clauses 52 to 58 and Clause 65 should be exercised.
If we were to go into all the detail that is set out in these amendments as well as keeping to the terms of the Bill, it would be cluttering up the Bill quite unnecessarily and it would be confusing to those who have to administer it. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the Government should not accept the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is much in the amendments which we already have in mind to apply to the technical assessors, or the drinking water inspectorate as we are now calling it. I set out some of the tasks which we envisage for the inspectorate when we discussed the topic on Report. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh has clearly taken what I said to heart and has elegantly re-presented these tasks in the proposed subsection (1A) in Amendment No. 26. I confirm to him and the House that it is our intention that the inspectors should monitor compliance with the drinking water regulations and with the other duties concerning water quality set out in Part II of the Bill. We will also want them to monitor improvement programmes and advise the Secretary of State in connection with his enforcement duty in Clause 20. They will also need to liaise with local authorities and carry out a certain amount of check samplings and analysis. Indeed this is all provided for in the existing Clause 58, as my noble friend Lord Renton has just reminded the House. The only additional matters brought in by this new subsection are the reference to the director general and the use of the word "shall" in relation to the tasks of the inspectors.
I have several times explained why it is inappropriate to involve the director general in the subject of drinking water quality. Economic regulation does not sit very easily with public health considerations, and placing responsibility on two bodies rather than one is, I contend, a recipe for confusion and delay. I gave an assurance in Committee that we would not employ water undertakers to carry out any of the assessments. I also explained why we may wish to employ consultants for some of the initial and more technical tasks of the inspectors, and that we would not wish to be limited to full-time Government employees.
If customer service committees had the power to require an inspector to carry out whatever monitoring or analysis it wanted, I would hesitate to put a figure on the number of inspectors who might be needed to duplicate a task which is essentially carried out by the water undertakers. Such a role for CSCs would also quite change their relationship with water undetakers so that they became part of the enforcement function. As for the local organisation of the inspectorate, this question is being considered but no decisions have yet been taken. It would therefore be premature to fix the organisation in the mould desribed in Amendment No. 26.
The final amendment, No. 27, is not necessary as private supplies will be assessed by local authorities,
646
and they will have ample powers to ensure that the quality regulations are met. The only time when the inspectors might have a function; relation to private supplies would be if an appeal were made to the Secretary of State under Clause 58 against the terms of a notice serviced by a local authority. They could then hear that appeal.
Your Lordships will have gathered from my remarks that the Government are not able to support these amendments, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh will bear in mind the assurances that I have again been able to give him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was entirely convinced by the Minister's argument on Amendment No. 27. I am satisfied that the local authorities should continue to have the responsibilities for local supplies that exist now and that he referred to. I am less satisfied with the other assurances he has given us, although in so far as they move towards the position that we are trying to achieve, I thank him for them. I particularly thank him for the assurances about the responsibilities of the assessors, the drinking water inspectorate, under our proposed subsection (1A).
I confess that I am still disappointed that the Government have not found it possible to make a decision about the establishment of local divisions. I should have thought that the matter had been under consideration for long enough for them to be able to make up their minds and recognise the necessity for it. I do not believe that consumers will be convinced that a drinking water inspectorate based on Marsham Street which does not have local divisions in which the inspectors or assessors do not deal with customer service committees in the areas, is providing the back-up necessary to enforce increasingly, and rightly, severe drinking water quality standards.
I am afraid that even with all the assurances and indications of what will be in the regulations, this will not be seen to be the Government's finest hour. They will in the end find that this is another example of intransigence, or at least partial intransigence, against substantial public pressure for more open and more responsive assessment of drinking water quality and for greater access for ordinary people to achieve the drinking water quality they require. However, this is Third Reading, and this is not the kind of matter we can deal with by Divisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 28 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Financial conditions of sewer requisition]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 87, line 42, leave out ("direction") and insert ("determination").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Performance of sewerage functions by local authorities]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 88, line 32, at end insert—
("(4A) Arrangements entered into for the purposes of this section shall, where a relevant authority has served notice on the undertaker, include provision that where arrangements are varied or terminated, the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1976 shall have effect").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Report Stage my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved an amendment which is reported at cols. 1403 and 1404 of the Official Report. That amendment was designed to ensure that all existing sewerage agencies would, if they were terminated under the provisions of the Bill from 1st April 1992, be covered by the provisions of the present staff transfer order for sewerage staff. The purpose of the present amendment is different. It seeks not to require transfer arrangements to conform with the order in the period after the 1st April 1992. Rather, it looks further ahead to the period when agencies created as a result of the Bill may be terminated after that date—perhaps in the late 1990s or even the early years of the next century. The purpose, however, is that identified by Lord McIntosh: namely, to preserve for local authority sewerage agencies the prospect of retaining good staff on proper terms and conditions commensurate with the responsibility of the job.
The 1976 order is discretionary and may be applied or omitted under a particular agency agreement at the decision of the parties. As the Minister pointed out at Report stage, the great majority of agency arrangements are believed to incorporate the 1976 provisions. At that stage the Minister resisted an amendment, which would have underwritten existing agreements with the 1976 provisions, to cover the minority of cases where they have not been incorporated into the agreement. This amendment recognises the Minister's argument that existing arrangements should not be disturbed and looks rather to the future of the sewerage agency under the new regime created by the Bill.
The amendment would require the 1976 provisions to be applied to a sewerage agency where a local authority indicated in the drawing up of the agreement that it wished those provisions to be applicable; in other words, to give the local authority the opportunity to protect the terms and conditions of its staff to the standards envisaged in 1976. The undertaker could not be forced to accept these provisions, since the creation of the agency itself would be a matter for agreement.
There is a widespread fear in local authorities that the uncertainties over the future of the agencies, which have been created in the recent past and which have led to a decline in the numbers of senior and middle management staff, will prove the precursor of a long-term trend. The agency could wither if the prospects of its staff, particularly on the engineering side, are not given a measure of protection. This amendment would at least enable a local authority negotiating an agency to attempt to protect the medium term prospects of its staff by ensuring that
648
they would enjoy a measure of transfer protection where that agency is terminated by the undertaker at a future date. By accepting the amendment, or the spirit of its terms, the Government would go a long way to reassure those managers and staff who are providing an increasingly pressured service in an uncertain environment.
We do not regard the amendment as being contentious. It merely ensures the same level of protection where arrangements are renegotiated at any time after 1st April 1992. It has no effect upon any new arrangements which may be created where currently none exists although such inclusion may be agreeable to both parties. It does nothing to increase or strengthen the position of the local authorities in their desire for continued sewerage involvement. It does not impose provisions on the undertaker nor does it restrict any freedom under the Bill.
The amendment seeks only to ensure that where local authorities are recognised as providing a fully efficient and effective service to the undertaker the terms of any renegotiation of arrangements which may arise after the transfer date recognise the 1976 order. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this amendment would allow a sewerage agent to require that the provisions of the Local Government Agency Arrangements (Staff Transfer and Protection) Order 1976 should apply to any sewerage agency arrangement. This order specifies, in some considerable detail, the terms on which staff would be transferred, if they were 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. 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 this background that I ask your Lordships to view this amendment.
Existing sewerage agency arrangements have been made between 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 paragraph 15(2) of the schedule 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 existing arrangements this amendment is irrelevant.
It may be that a few arrangements do not incorporate the provisions of the 1976 order. Some future arrangements may not. I remind your Lordships that such an omission would be the result of unconstrained negotiations between the two

649
parties involved, and I am sure that you will understand that in such circumstances we should not wish to allow one party the right to unilaterally impose a change in the termination provisions. That is why we resist this amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply although I am considerably disappointed by both it terms and its tone. There is an air of unreality on the part of the Government in assessing the degree of uncertainty which must arise for the qualified staff of local authorities who are sewerage contractors after 1992. That is not an eternity away; even at our present ripe old age some of us have high expectations of seeing 1992.
I believe that the Government considerably underestimate the problems of maintaining a highly-qualified technical staff, particularly on the engineering side. Such people may believe that after 1992 there will be the possibility of changes in arrangements which could mean that they are not required by the local authority or that their terms and conditions would be adversely affected. In those circumstances qualified engineers and others will look to the future with some apprehension. They will take the sensible view that it may be better to be sure of one's future than uncertain about it. That appears to be the effect of the Government's attitude to the amendment.
Having tried my best and failed to persuade the Government to see what might be done without great difficulty and without imposing any obligation on either party to do anything in particular—because the provisions of the amendment can come about only after agreement between both sides—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Charges schemes]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Liability of occupiers etc. for charges]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 92, line 25, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, following the persuasive arguments put forward by my noble friends Lords Renton and Lord Trafford and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, during the Report stage of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Caithness undertook to consider whether subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 77 should be deleted. We have now carefully considered the issues and have come to the conclusion that, on balance, it is in the interests of consumers that they should be deleted from the Bill.
As a result of this amendment, where there is an agreement with an undertaker that a person other than the occupier, for example a landlord, will be liable for charges, the undertaker will no longer be able to recover outstanding charges owed by that person from a subsequent owner or the occupier. Instead, the undertaker will have to recover the debt through the courts from the person who originally agreed to be responsible for the charges. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl knows that if he blows in my ear I will follow him anywhere. When he describes his noble friend Lord Renton and myself as been persuasive he knows that he will have our support for the amendments. It was always a nonsense that new occupiers could be pursued for the debts of old occupiers. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, it is always better to rely on recovery through the courts, as is the case for other debts. We welcome the amendment and the removal from the Bill of these unnecessary provisions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should also like to express my great thanks to my noble friends on the Front Bench for moving the amendment. It has more significance than appears at first sight. Not only does it remove an injustice. It is also refreshing to find that in this case at least the Government are not using the excuse that the provision is already contained in the present law as a reason for perpetuating it. The amendment removes an injustice; it removes too from this voluminous Bill 30 lines of quite unnecessary detail. For that we rejoice.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will join me in saying that as I was inspired by the National Consumer Council to move the amendment on Report it is also entitled to its share of the credit for removing the injustice.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, on behalf of the National Consumer Council I should also like to thank my noble friend for this generous concession which is extremely welcome. We cannot win them all; but we are most grateful for those we do win.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 81, insert the following new clause:
("Fixing maximum charges for services provided with the help of undertakers' services.
.—(1) The Director may from time to time by order fix maximum charges which a person who is not a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker may recover from another such person in respect of water supplies or sewerage services provided to that other person with the help of services provided by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker.
(2) For the purposes of this section water supplies or sewerage services are provided to a person with the help of services provided by a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker if—

(a) a facility for that person to have access to a supply of water provided by a water undertaker in pipes, or to make use of sewerage services provided by a sewerage undertaker, is made available to that person otherwise than by the undertaker;

(b) that person is provided with a supply of water in pipes by a person to whom the water is supplied, directly or indirectly, by a water undertaker; or

(c) that person is provided with sewerage services by a person who, for the purpose of providing those services, makes use of sewerage services provided, directly or indirectly, by a sewerage undertaker.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Director to publish any order under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it
(4) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases, including different provision, in relation to

651
different persons, circumstances or localities, and may fix a maximum charge either by specifying the maximum amount of the charge or by specifying a method of calculating that amount.
(5) Where a person pays a charge in respect of anything to which an order under this section relates and the amount paid exceeds the maximum charge fixed by the order, the amount of the excess shall be recoverable by that person from the person to whom he paid the charge.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause which arises out of an undertaking that my noble friend Lord Caithness gave to your Lordships during the Report stage, is to give the director general powers to make orders fixing the maximum prices at which water supplied or sewerage services can be re-sold.
By necessity, this new clause is rather more complicated than the corresponding provisions in the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Bill. This is because of the need to exclude from the arrangement such sales as bulk supplies between water undertakers or, at the other extremes, bottled water or a glass of orange cordial in a public house or restaurant. In consequence, the clause covers only the resale of water services by persons who are not a water or sewerage undertaker but where the service was originally provided by an undertaker. There is a further restriction in the case of water where the person being resold the water must be provided, either directly or indirectly, with a supply of water through a pipe.
Subsection (3) places a duty on the director general to publish any order under this new clause in such a manner so as to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected by it. It will of course be up to the director to decide how best to carry out this duty but, for example, we imagine that he would want to ensure that copies of orders are set to citizens advice bureaux.
Subsection (4) provides that an order under this new clause may make different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities, and may fix a maximum charge either by specifying the maximum amount of the charge or by specifying a method of calculating that amount. This should provide the director general with sufficient flexibility to cover the different circumstances by which water might be resold; for example, on an unmeasured basis or through the use of individual meters.
Finally, subsection (5) provides that where a person pays a charge for water or sewerage services in excess of the maximum resale price, the amount in excess will be recoverable by the person to whom it is resold. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are grateful for this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will not think that I am churlish if I still have some worries about its wording and some of its content. It is clearly going in the right direction. It is the Government's intention to secure that there is no overcharging on resale of water supplies and to secure the protection which is necessary for tenants and those who live in houses in multiple occupation, or, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook,
652
reminded us, tenants who live in a park of mobile homes. Such tenants should be protected from landlords who could otherwise readily overcharge for the use of water which comes from a water undertaking.
As the noble Earl acknowledged, this is a much more complicated amendment than that which I moved on Report. I was not fully satisfied with his reasoning for the additional complexity. After all, if this law is to be effective, it also has to be clear. I hope that the Government, in implementing the law, will see to it that there are general regulations on resale and that they are couched in such a way that they can be understood by the ordinary people who will have to rely on them in order to obtain their rights. For example, the phrase in subsection (4):
"or by specifying a method of calculating that amount"
does not seem to me at all clear. I hope that the Government will issue clear and explicit regulations which are not misleading and, perhaps, leaflets which are not misleading in order to explain the intention of the amendment with which we thoroughly agree.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is up to the director general to make the order and to provide the explanatory material.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Initial Government holdings]:
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 96, line 17, after ("may") insert ("in accordance with subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 returns to the issue which we debated on Report but which we also touched on in the Reasoned Amendment at the beginning of this afternoon.
The issue here is that there should be an adequate gap between the setting of the K figure on which charges to consumers are to be based and the flotation of the shares. There are many reasons why that is necessary, even though we acknowledge that K will not now be set until the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
I still feel that that is deeply regrettable and that we should have been given an idea of what consumers are to be charged. Moreover the electors of Members of the House of Commons will feel that their representatives should have been given some idea of what will be the cost of water privatisation as reflected in consumer prices. I am strengthened in deploring that by the indication from the Financial Times on Friday that the figures for K have already been communicated, if only on the basis of final consultation, to the regional water authorities and the statutory water companies. That may be only a press rumour but even so it shows that we are, as indeed we must be, very close to the time when the information on consumer prices must be made available, should have been made available and should now be made available in an adequate time—and we suggest three months—before flotation.
The situation is different from that which we faced when the Bill started in your Lordships' House in April. The 1988–89 accounts of the regional water authorities have now been published although there has been very little time to subject them to adequate analysis. We understand that the asset management plans of the authorities have been submitted and may even have been agreed. As I say, the regional water authorities and the statutory water companies are being informed about the K formula.
Therefore, we have good justification for saying that there should be an adequate gap between the declaration of K and flotation. The purpose of this amendment is not to put back flotation but to put forward publication of K. That is what is essential. It is the gap between the two which matters.
This is an issue on which the Government's credibility is very much at stake. The Secretary of State has gone on record as saying that he thinks that water prices will increase by, I think the figure was, 7·5 per cent. to 12·5 per cent. in real terms over the next five years. If that is the case, the figure for K in addition to the RPI can only be about plus 1 per cent. If the Secretary of State's estimate of the rise in prices is to mean anything and is not to mislead the public, then the Government should be committing themselves to a figure for K of not more than 0.1 per cent. However, the indications are that K might be as much as plus 10 per cent. in which case we should be talking of increases in prices of as much as 150 per cent. in real terms over the next 10 years.
Somewhere between those two figures, the truth lies. The Government should have told us in time for that to be considered by Parliament. However, even if we have lost that argument, we must insist that the Government tell the consumers and investors in good time for them to make judgments. Consumers should be making judgments about the figures because they must be assessing K against the stated investment needs in the asset management plans of the authorities. They must be able to assess it against the statement in the Bill that the Government will ensure a reasonable rate of return for the new water and sewerage undertakings. What is that reasonable rate of return to be? We received no answer from the Government despite heavy probing. Above all, they need to know what are the performance improvements which the Government have always used as their basis for privatisation but on which we have no firm indication and no firm assurance that the pricing formula will be adequate to secure those performance improvements.
Of course, investors are concerned with all those matters but in the end they are concerned with making a commercial judgment about the water industry as an investment. The prime piece of evidence which they must have, where the Government are choosing price regulation rather than profit regulation, is what the price will be. At present, nobody knows. Speculation in the City is becoming increasingly despondent about prospects for a successful flotation. Only the Government can put the City out of its misery and only the
654
Government can do their duty to consumers. They should do so by allowing an adequate gap for analysis, consideration and public debate between the setting of K and the time of flotation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments seek further to protect the interests of customers, and I must say that the existing provisions are already adequate to meet the noble Lord's concerns. I base my argument on two points. First, the customer is protected from excessive increases in charges by the terms of the Bill itself which lays down the way in which the Secretary of State must act in setting charges initially and, similarly, the responsibilities of the director general subsequently.
What are important are the terms of Clause 7 which, I remind your Lordships, say that the Secretary of State must,
"ensure that the interests of every person who is a customer … of a company … are protected as respects the fixing and recovery by that company of … charges".
That is a requirement which could not be stated more clearly and it is one to which we are already paying the most serious attention as we consider the expenditure programmes of the future water plcs and the charges needed to finance them.
Secondly, I remind your Lordships that the model intrument of appointment which makes clear the basis on which charges will be set was published as long ago as last December and has been widely discussed since then. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will also be aware that, following discussions with the undertakers and before the House goes into Recess, we hope to make known what the project K values are for future charges. The requirement to publish such information three months in advance of the Secretary of State exercising his powers under Clause 82 ensures that the consumers will know in good time. However, the three months is an over-rigid period and it may be marginally less, as the noble Lord knows only too well.
I contend that the Government have acted generously in consultations on future charging arrangements and the terms of the Bill reflect our concern for customers. In conclusion, .1 have to say that the reason behind these amendments smacks a little of an attempt to wreck the Government's timetable for privatisation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am shocked that the Minister should think that I have any interest in wrecking the Government's timetable for privatisation. As he well knows, and as he acknowledged in his description of the purport of the amendments, we are concerned that both investors and consumers—but particularly consumers—should have an adequate time to consider the figure of K, which is an essential element of consumer prices in the judgment of whether privatisation is of advantage to the consumer, as it is claimed to be, and whether it is a viable basis for flotation.

655
I am grateful to the Minister for saying in public what he was good enough to say in a letter to me last week, that the figures for K will be available before the House rises at the end of July. As he said, that comes close to the Government's own timetable for flotation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 85 [Conversion of certain loans]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 99, line 5, leave out ("on") and insert ("under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Tax provisions]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 106, line 13, leave out ("on") and insert ("under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Registration of statutory water companies under the Companies Act 1985]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 38:
Page III, line 4, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) Where—

(a) provision for the constitution and regulation of a statutory water company holding an appointment under Chapter I of this Part—

(i) is contained in local statutory provisions having effect in accordance with paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 to the said Act of 1985 (enactments to have effect as if contained in memorandum and articles); or

(ii) would, apart from this subsection, be so contained if the company became a registered water company;

(b) the company has by special resolution proposed (whether before or after becoming a registered water company) that provision contained in a memorandum and articles shall have effect in substitution for those local statutory provisions;

(c) the proposal that a memorandum and articles shall so have effect in relation to the company has been approved by order made by the Secretary of State; and

(d) in the case of a company that has not already done so, the company becomes a registered water company,

those local statutory provisions shall cease to have effect on such date as may, for the purposes of this subsection, be specified or described in that order and the proposed memorandum and articles shall come into force on that date subject to any modifications, terms or conditions contained in any order made by the High Court under section 101 below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 42 to 52 and 142 would allow a statutory water company to register under the Companies Act 1985 and to adopt a new memorandum and articles, in one step, rather than in two separate steps, which is what the Bill as currently framed would require.
The advantages are clear. Only one shareholders' meeting would be necessary and this measure could prevent companies being stuck in the half-way position of being for a time both a statutory water company and a registered company. The Secretary of State and shareholders would still have to give their approval to any changes to a company's status, so we are not dispensing with any safeguards, and
656
nobody will be disadvantaged; we are simply taking the opportunity to streamline the conversion procedure.
I now turn to Amendment No. 144. This amendment has been laid to meet the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Elliott at Report stage, when he moved Amendments Nos. 120B and 120C to allow a statutory water company to restructure its debentures. It would allow a statutory water company or its creditors to apply to the courts for an arrangement or reconstruction under Part XIII of the Companies Act 1985. The practical effect of this would be that companies which intended to convert to plc status, using the powers in the Water Bill, would be able to reconstruct their capital at the time of conversion rather than having to carry this out as a separate and later exercise.
I have already indicated that for practical reasons companies will probably not wish to apply for registration under the Companies Act until they have obtained all the necessary approvals from shareholders for the adoption of a new memorandum and articles; and the time for appeals to the courts by dissentient minorities has elapsed. But until they register they would not, under the current Bill's provisions, be able to apply to the courts for a restructuring of their debentures, which many wish to undertake. The time required for this application to the courts would either delay conversion or result in the debentures being restructured as a separate exercise after conversion.
This amendment would apply Part XIII of the Companies Act 1985 to statutory water companies with such modifications as may be prescribed and so allow them to approach the courts for a restructuring of their debentures before they are registered under the Companies Act. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this extension of well-tried Companies Act provisions to the water companies is the most satisfactory way of resolving the difficulty which the companies face in achieving a modern structure for their debentures. I hope your Lordships will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the Government for meeting, as they have done through this group of amendments, the very real concerns of the water companies which I expressed on Report through my amendments. The Water Companies' Association is most grateful for this meeting of their concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, unless any noble Lord wishes to speak to Amendments Nos. 39 to 48 I propose that they be taken en bloc.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh: moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 48:
Page 111, line 23, leave out ("under subsection (3) above in relation to a registered water company") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above in relation to a proposal by any company").
Page 111, line 36, leave out second ("to") and insert ("of").
Page 111, line 39, after ("consent") insert ("to").
Page 112, line 6, leave out ("registered water").
Page 112, line 9, leave out ("under subsection (3)") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c)").
Page 112, line 13, after ("specified") insert ("or described").
Page 112, line 29, leave out ("under subsection (3)") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c)").
Page 112, line 34, leave out ("under subsection (3) or") and insert ("for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above or an order under subsection").
Page 112, line 44, leave out from ("resolution"") to end of line 46 and insert—

("(a) in relation to a meeting held after the company in question has become a registered water company, means an extraordinary resolution within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985; and

(b) in relation to a meeting held before that company becomes a registered water company, means such a resolution as would be a special resolution within the meaning of section 97 above if the meeting were a meeting of the company;").

Page 113, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—
(""registrar of companies" has the same meaning as in that Act; and
"special resolution"—

(a) in relation to a time after the company in question has become a registered water company, means (subject to subsection (2) of section 101 below) a special resolution within the meaning of that Act; and

(b) in relation to a time before that company becomes a registered water company, means (subject to that subsection) a special resolution within the meaning of section 97 above;

and in this section and section 101 below a reference to a company's becoming a registered water company is a reference to the issue to that company (whether before or on or after the transfer date) of a certificate under section 688 of that Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 101 [Procedure for cancelling resolutions for substituting memorandum and articles]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 49 to 52:
Page 113, line 5, leave out ("registered water").
Page 113, line 40, leave out from ("after") to end of line 43 and insert ("the date of the last resolution, consent or approval to be passed or given for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) or (4)(b) of section 100 above or for the purposes, in connection with the company's becoming a registered water company, of section 681 of the Companies Act 1985 (procedural requirements for registration).").
Page 114, line 17, leave out ("registered water").
Page 114, line 26, leave out ("registered water").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 102 [Waters to which Chapter I applies]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 115, line 39, after ("means") insert ("(subject to subsection (5) below)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 115, line 49, at end insert—
("(bb) that a lake or pond which does so discharge and is of a description specified in the order is to be treated for those purposes as if it were not a relevant lake or pond;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was good enough to advise me beforehand that he would require some further clarification on Amendment No. 54. This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make an order excluding lakes
658
or ponds of the type described in the order from the class of controlled waters.
In framing Amendment No. 54 we had in mind such things as settling lagoons at coal mines. If those lagoons discharge into rivers they count as controlled waters because of the definition of "relevant lake or pond" in Clause 102(4). Thus, a coal miner would need a discharge consent from the NRA before he could discharge effluent into his lagoon. Clearly the NRA would have no interest in what goes into a lagoon but will be concerned with what comes out of it and into a river. As a result of the amendment it will be possible to exclude lagoons from the class of controlled waters, thus confining the NRA's involvement to what it is interested in; namely, what enters the river from the lagoon.
I should add that any order made under this amendment will, because of Clause 102(6), be subject to negative annulment by either House. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. I have no objection to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 116, line I, leave out ("specified in the order") and insert ("so specified").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 116, line 10, leave out from ("(b)") to ("make") in line 11.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will find this an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to Third Reading at 8.30 p.m.
I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
At Second Reading I undertook to answer a point raised by noble Lords concerning the financial and manpower implications of the Bill. The House will be aware that the provisions of the Bill were the subject of a government consultation exercise in December 1986. All local authorities which commented on the proposals supported them.

659
Local authorities currently have a duty under the Public Health Acts to inspect their areas to detect matters which require to be dealt with as a statutory nuisance. In the case of non-dark smoke emitted from dwellings outside smoke control areas they now receive complaints but cannot take enforcement action. The Bill will enable local authorities to take rapid and effective action against such emissions where they are considered to constitute a statutory nuisance. In the case of non-dark smoke emitted from dwellings outside smoke control areas they not only more effective control over smoke nuisances but a reduction in the number of repeated complaints about smoke nuisances because of the lack of local authority enforcement powers.
In the case of dark smoke emitted from industrial or trade premises, local authorities currently face a barrage of local complaints and the expense of court cases which prove abortive because they cannot prove that dark smoke was emitted at night or because it was successsfully argued that the person causing the emission was not the occupier of the premises. The Bill should help to improve the local authority success rate with the resultant saving in legal fees. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill
7.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to be able to inform noble Lords that, in the debates which took place on this Bill in another place, both Government and Opposition speakers found themselves very much in agreement on the two broad principles which this Bill seeks to reinforce. Those two principles are, first, that the industry which generates profits from the manufacture and supply of pesticides should underwrite the full cost of the procedures by which the use of these products is approved and monitored; and secondly, that the arrangements under which the controls on pesticides are enforced embody sufficient flexibility for them to be applied and quickly when the need arises.
The products I am talking about consist not only of pesticides which are used in agriculture and horticulture but also those which carry out essential pest-killing and health-protecting roles in factories,
660
food stores, sewers, hospitals, restaurants and homes. All of us benefit, every day, from the use of these products and all of us need to be assured that they are safe.
Clause 1 sets out an amended version of Section 18 of the Food and Environment Protection Act—customarily referred to by the acronym FEPA—and thereby solves a difficulty which has arisen over the arrangement for imposing charges for the approval and monitoring of pesticides. When the charging system was being drawn up after FEPA had passed into law in 1985, it was intended that there should be two different types of charge by which the pesticides industry should meet the costs of ensuring that its products were safe from the point of view of human health, wildlife and the environment before their use was approved. Part of the costs, but not all, would be recovered by means of fees which would be payable before approval was granted, and the remainder would be recovered by means of a levy that would be charged on turnover on approved products after approval had been granted. That levy would also serve to underwrite the costs of monitoring the use of pesticides in the United Kingdom. In that way, smaller companies within the pesticides industry would not be required to bear the full burden of approval costs before any revenue had been earned from the products concerned, and a disincentive to technological innovation would be avoided.
That scheme turned out to be incapable of full implementation, because it was established that the present wording of Section 18 of FEPA did not allow approval costs to be met partly by application fees and partly out of the levy on turnover. As a result, the taxpayer as well as the pesticides industry has had to contribute to the costs, to the tune of about half a million pounds a year. The new Section 18 set out in Clause 1 of the Bill will allow the original charging scheme to be implemented in full and ensure that all the costs are met by the industry.
Clause 2 puts right another unforeseen difficulty concerning the people who may be designated as enforcement officers under the Bill. Under Section 19 of FEPA at present, local authorities and port health authorities cannot be designated as enforcement officers under the Act, even though it is to those bodies that the primary responsibility for enforcing the controls on pesticides falls. The result is that all the officers who need to have enforcement responsibilities have to be authorised personally by Ministers. That is a highly impractical arrangement and the amendment to Section 19 of FEPA set out in Clause 2 puts this right by enabling local authorities to authorise members of their staff as enforcement officers in categories specified by Ministers.
I hope that the passage of this small but important Bill through this House will provoke as little disagreement as did its passage through another place. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for confirming what my own reading of the Bill conveyed to me and for reminding us of the peace and harmony which prevailed at Second Reading and in Committee in another place concerning this measure. I played a part when the 1985 Act, which I did not realise was known as FEPA, passed through your Lordships' House and to that extent I must accept my share of the responsibility for the inadequacies of the drafting. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness has explained this evening, Clause 1 will place the burden where it properly belongs and Clause 2 will tidy up an administrative matter which needs just that treatment. We wish the Bill well and a speedy passage through the House.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Chemical Industries Group. The record of the pesticides industry and its allied organisations is a good one. What slightly worries some people about the Bill are the powers given to the Government. It is surely possible for the industry itself to set up a task force to generate the data required by the Government and be self-regulatory as opposed to the Government doing the job. That would decrease the amount of time required. Any organisation which failed to provide the data would not be exempted from the levy.
My understanding is that it is open to the Secretary of State to review at any time an approval given for the use of a particular pesticide. Moreover, under the clean air legislation, I believe that the Government already have considerable powers to control the use of pesticides and other such substances. However, with that reservation, I give a warm welcome to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his welcome to this tiny Bill. I was also most interested in his paternity claim as regards FEPA. I noted what my noble friend Lord Auckland said and I shall write to him on any points which I think he may like to have answered.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8.30 p.m.]

Water Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 104 [Water quality objectives]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 57.
Page 116, line 37, after ("classification") insert ("and in accordance with subsection (2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment. It is comparable with the amendment we tabled on drinking water quality. It applies the principle of trying to establish a date for the timescale required for water quality objectives. Although it is an important amendment, I believe that I can deal with it rapidly in the form of a question.
We know that the Government have resisted strongly the idea of a timetable for drinking water quality objectives. We know that even now the Minister of State is putting alternative proposals to the European Commission which, presumably, will have to contain an alternative date. What stage have the Government reached in the water quality and river quality objectives? If they cannot agree to the date of 31st December 1993, what date do they think is realistic? It would be inappropriate for a House of this size at this time of night to proceed to a Division. But any help the Government can give would be of assistance to my right honourable and honourable friends in another place in securing that there is a sensible debate about river water and drinking water quality. I beg to move the amendment in the form of a question to the Government Front Bench.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made. I hope that he will understand that I feel that I should reply to his amendment, albeit briefly, because that would be as appropriate as trying to answer his question.
The effect of the amendment would be to require that all statutory quality objectives must be achieved by the end of 1993 except where the Secretary of State, in the light of representations from effluent dischargers, decides that that is an impracticable goal and that more time is needed. However, in no circumstances would the Secretary of State be able to extend the deadline for achieving an objective beyond December 1995.
Clause 104(1) provides that water quality objectives may be set both for the maintenance and the improvement of the quality of controlled waters. The amendment would be perfectly compatible with any objectives requiring the maintenance of water quality which were set no later than 31st December 1993 for objectives for the maintenance of water quality must be met from the day they are set. However, it is difficult to reconcile the amendment with any subsequent variation of an objective made after 1993 requiring the waters to be maintained at a new higher standard. Even more significant perhaps the amendment is totally incompatible with

663
objectives designed to achieve long-term improvements in water quality. The best example I can give is that of the Mersey Basin campaign which we established in 1983. By the time that it is finished £2·5 billion will have been invested in eliminating all poor and bad quality waters and in upgrading all existing fair quality waters, but it is not expected to be finished until about 2010. That campaign cannot be reconciled with the amendments making it impossible to set deadlines for any improvements which could not be met by 1993 or, at the latest, 1995.
Are we to deny ourselves the opportunity to use quality objectives for one of the key purposes for which they were designed—the necessary long-term improvement of our rivers? The amendment would mean that water quality objectives would, in a few years' time, be of use only in maintaining water quality. They would be stripped of their role as a means of securing improvements. I am not sure what the Bill has to do with the EC directive on drinking water quality. The government position remains as set out at previous stages of the Bill. Beyond that, it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate what might happen in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a most unhelpful answer to the major question that I put. However, I understand from what the Minister said that there is a danger that the amendment as drafted would make it more difficult to apply higher qualities in the future. That was not our intention. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 105 [General duties to achieve and maintain objectives etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 117, line 40, leave out from ("under") to end of line 41 and insert ("this Chapter, to monitor the extent of pollution in controlled waters and to consult, in such cases as it may consider appropriate, with river purification authorities in Scotland.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to with respect to breaches of objectives.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the Authority to exercise the powers conferred on him or it, by or under the provision of this Chapter and Chapter VI below in such manner as ensures that the investigation and determination of breaches or possible breaches of water quality objectives as established under section 104 above is completed as soon as practicable.
(2) The Authority shall, in any case where it identifies a breach or possible breach on a single occasion of one or more water quality objectives, or where such a breach is brought to its attention, undertake sufficient sampling, together with any other appropriate investigation, as shall enable it to establish as soon as practicable whether or not a breach of a licence, consent, or statutory provision has occurred, or whether an offence has been committed under section 106 below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been overtaken by government Amendment No. 145.
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Offences of polluting controlled waters etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 118, line 30, at end insert ("or derives from a prescribed process or from a process involving the use of prescribed substances or the use of such substances in quantities which exceed the prescribed amounts.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Deposits and vegetation in rivers etc.]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 121, line 7, at end insert ("provided that a person shall not be guilty of such an offence where the removal was carried out in an emergency in order to avoid danger to life.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with the dangers of flooding, and that emergency action, which would otherwise be an offence, should not be regarded as an offence when it is designed to remove any risk to life and limb as a result of flooding. The clause prevents a person from removing silt which has accumulated at the bottom of a stream bed because that action is banned. Someone acting under land drainage boards is not guilty of an offence, but rapid flooding caused by extra heavy rains may cause there to be a danger. By acting to release water pressure which might build up, for instance, as a result of a dam caused by silting, someone would be acting to save lives. The amendment is appropriate because such action is not against the spirit of the clause and is designed to protect life. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we cannot imagine a person being prosecuted, convicted and fined, for disturbing mud while saving life. If the amendment is needed here, it is needed throughout the statute book; but it is not needed. I am sure that we can instead rely on the good sense and humanity of the NRA and the courts. It is for those reasons that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I feel rather chastened by that reply, but having been given that assurance, which is now on the record, the amendment has served any purpose it might have had and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 [Requirements to take precautions against pollution]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 121, line 30, leave out ("the matter from entering") and insert ("or controlling the entry of the matter into any").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 63. The effect of this amendment will be to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 109 prescribing works, precautions, and other steps to be taken to control the entry of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into controlled waters. As currently drafted, Clause 109 only allows such regulations to be made for the purpose of completely preventing the entry of such matter into such water.
As a result of this amendment it will be possible to require that anyone in charge of poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter must not only store that matter in a safe manner, but must take precautions to ensure that should an accident occur the polluting effect of the matter will be minimised. An example of the precautions which might be prescribed is a requirement on the person having charge of the polluting matter to keep decontaminants to hand for use in an emergency. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Water protection zones]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 70:
Page 122, line 4, after ("consultation") insert ("(in the case of an area wholly or partly in England)").
Clause 117 [Information and assistance]:
Page 128, line 24, leave out (", to give the Secretary of State") and insert ("or the Minister, to give him"):
Page 128, line 26, after ("State") insert ("or the Minister").
Page 128, line 28, after ("State") insert (", the Minister").
Page 128, line 30, after ("State") insert (", the Minister").
Page 128, line 33, after first ("or") insert ("the Minister or by").
Page 128, line 35, after ("State") insert ("or the Minister").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [Minimum acceptable river flows]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71:
Page 132, line 34, at end insert—
("(3A) The National Rivers Authority shall review all abstraction licences within a period of not more than five years, for the purpose of determining the impact of such abstraction on the physical condition and amenity of the inland waters concerned and the surrounding area and on the quality of the water, and shall submit the results of such review with recommendations where it considers them appropriate to the Secretary of State.
(3B) The National Rivers Authority may, in any circumstances where a licence is or has been under review, issue an interim direction to the licence-holder for the purpose of determining the permitted level of abstraction where the Authority considers it expedient for the purposes of improving or maintaining the physical condition or amenity of the inland waters concerned, or of its surrounding area, or of the quality of the water.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have decided not to move this amendment because another amendment—Amendment No. 72—standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is substantially
666
the same. I indicate to the House that I shall not move Amendment No. 71.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 72:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Licences to abstract water.
Where 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 licence in order to ensure the flow, level or volume of any inland water or any water contained in underground strata fur the purposes of protecting fisheries, flora, fauna or natural beauty.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has become apparent in the last weeks, through national and local press and television coverage, that over-extraction of water is and will continue to be a contentious issue for the water industry. I do not intend to reiterate the numerous case studies of over-extraction which have already been drawn to the attention of the House by myself and other noble Lords during the Committee and Report stages.
It is an issue to which I feel particularly committed. While the Minister had some sympathy for my amendment at the Report stage, he still felt that the powers and duties of the NRA already in the Bill were sufficient. I fear that this rather underestimates both the problems and the concern of the countryside users who are seeing their rivers and wetlands drying up.
Your Lordships will know that I moved amendments at both Committee and Report stages and I make no apology for tabling two amendments at this late stage. I view the amendments as being a belt and braces approach. They simply seek to ensure that evidence of environmental damage through over-extraction of water will trigger a review of licences by the NRA. The Bill in its present form does not specifically address the problem.
My first amendment, No. 72, provides the means for relevant agencies to request the NRA to carry out a review when problems arise. The second amendment, No. 121, which is grouped with Amendment No. 72, ensures that the NRA takes into account its environmental duties when reviewing licences.
Let me speak first to Amendment No. 72. It is similar to the one which I tabled at Report stage and will provide the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the NRA's advisory committees with a statutory right to request a review of water abstraction licences. I welcome the Minister's previous assurance that the NRA will have the power to review licences of right. However, during the Report stage I tried to convince the House that the NRA should have a duty to review abstraction licences in the same way as it has a duty to review discharge consents.
The Minister tried to persuade me that this was not necessary as the NRA is to be independent from the water service plcs. That is one of the advantages of separating the two arms of the water industry—a

667
concept which I fully support. Nevertheless there is a strong case to be made for the adoption of statutory means which will ensure that the NRA conducts a review of abstraction licences which are considered as having a damaging effect on the environment. The precedent for this already exists in relation to discharge consents.
My contention with the Government is that if they feel that there is a need for a statutory review of what flows down the river, surely it is equally important to review how much water is taken out. The NCC, which is the body responsible for advising the Government on conservation matters, believes that the NRA should have a statutory duty to review abstraction licences. Since no such duty is provided for in the Bill, there should be as a minimum requirement a power for the NCC, the Countryside Commission and the NRA's advisory committees to be able to request the NRA to review these licences. That is exactly what my amendment seeks to do. I know that the Minister will tell me that the NCC or anyone else is at liberty to request a review of abstraction licences, but this amendment will strengthen and formalise the process and not leave it to chance.
When the Minister responds to the amendment, I should be grateful if he would clarify one small point. Will the NCC have the legal right to request the review of an abstraction licence which affects a river or wetland, neither of which is notified as a site of special scientific interest? That would clarify the Clause 9 duties for both the NRA and the NCC.
I now wish to speak to Amendment No. 121. It is a simple amendment which would clearly identify environmental problems resulting from over-abstraction with the ability of the NRA to review licences. It is an amendment to the relevant section of the 1963 Water Resources Act which provides for the review of abstraction licences. I have used the same wording as has been used in Clause 126(4)(b) with respect to the setting of minimum flows. That subsection ensures that the NRA will have due regard to its Clauses 8 and 9 environmental duties when it comes to determining minimum flows.
My amendment seeks to ensure precisely the same duty with respect to abstraction licences. Where there is evidence of environmental damage caused by over-abstraction, the NRA will have a clear duty under its Clauses 8 and 9 responsibilities to consider reviewing the abstraction licences. I accept that the power to deal with licences exists in the Bill but I believe that an issue that is of such concern to so many people should have a clear reference in the Bill. I do not believe that the amendment is in any way contentious and I feel that the Government should be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I only intend to take a minute or two of your Lordships' time. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has put forward an acceptable case most persuasively. What are we faced with? In previous debates the Minister talked about bureaucratic nightmares which of course are the device and the last refuge of
668
a Minister of the Government who does not wish to have duties imposed upon him which he does not like. I can tell him that in my view the people who would be affected by this bureaucratic nightmare would prefer to have it than to face the prospect of the beauty, the facilities and amenities which we seek to protect being damaged.
All the new amendment does is to make statutory and to lay down something which the Minister will probably tell us will be done in any case. In the amendment we say that environmental duties on a statutory basis need to be taken into account. We ask for a periodic review. As the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said, it is all very well saying, as the Minister did previously, that these things can be requested. We do not want that; we want people to acknowledge that if we are serious about these matters it should be part and parcel of the obligations to carry out these matters as good husbanders of our natural resources.
I very much hope that the Minister will accept that this provision is designed to maintain and improve the condition or the amenity of water, or the surrounding area, or the quality of the water itself. That very much rests upon arresting the depletion of water from our watercourses when that takes place unnecessarily and dangerously. In my view, this is an eminently reasonable amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. However, that implies no discourtesy to my noble friend or the House. In moving the amendment, my noble friend told the House exactly how I would answer it. I think we can both award ourselves 10 out of 10 for perseverence with the same arguments, and nought out of 10 for bringing forward any new arguments on Third Reading.
As regards Amendment No. 72, I am afraid I can only repeat what I said on Report; namely, that there is no point in putting on the face of an Act a provision which is completely unnecessary. The NCC and any other interested party can always request the NRA to exercise its powers, or to exercise them in a particular way; the fact that this may be done by means of abstraction licences is immaterial, and it is irrelevant whether it is a question of an SSSI, so my noble friend's concern is totally met. In fact my noble friend's amendment has a mischief in it. The mischief is that to formalise the position in statute could, I contend to the House, only cast doubt on the ability of parties other than those named to make similar requests. I am sure that my noble friend will see the wisdom of that.
I have rather similar remarks to make in connection with Amendment No. 121. Here again, Clause 8 itself already requires the NRA to take environmental and conservation matters into account in formulating any proposals. That includes proposals to revoke or amend abstraction licences.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I am afraid that the Government have not given any ground since the Committee and Report stages on the amendments on water abstraction. The amendments which I tabled

669
today were put down in response to the Government's previous criticisms, and are not, I believe, in any way contentious at all. The Minister has repeated his criticism that the additional powers are not necessary. However, I still find it horrifying that this Bill does not contain a reference to a very major problem—that is, over-abstraction.
I accept that there are resource implications in dealing with over-abstraction, but that should not be the reason for failure to resolve this problem. All the conservation bodies, including the Government's own advisers, feel strongly about this issue. Indeed, having seen so much damage caused in my own local environment by over-abstraction of water, which has been perpetuated as a result of 23 years of inaction by the present water authority, I hold out no hope of improvement under the privatised water industry unless an appropriate amendment is made to the Bill. I can only hope that the problems of over-abstraction can be resolved when the Bill goes back to another place. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 [General drought orders]:
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 131 [Emergency drought orders]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 145 [Ministerial directions to the Authority]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 153, line 1, after ("to") insert ("the making of applications for orders under section 111 above or with respect to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 153, line 4, leave out from ("to") to ("anything") in line 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Admissibility of analyses of samples]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 154, line 44, after ("sewer") insert ("or other outfall belonging to a sewerage undertaker").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 154, line 46, after ("sewer") insert ("or outfall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151 [Restriction on disposals of land]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 157, line 16, at end insert—
("(3A) Before granting any consent or authorisation under this section, the Secretary of State may establish a local inquiry to report to him with recommendations and the report of any such inquiry shall be published.
670
(3B) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of any local inquiry established under subsection (3A) above, make arrangements to secure that

(a) such individuals and organisations as appear to him to be concerned receive notice of the inquiry, is terms of reference and procedure of the making of submissions; and

(b) that notices of matters referred to in paragraph (a) above are placed in the London Gazette and such local newspapers and other publications as appear to him to be relevant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 80, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. These amendments deal with public consultation on land disposals. I hope the House will agree that that is a most important aspect of the Bill.
These amendments return to the issue raised by Amendment No. 140F at Report stage, which was moved to the Government's then new clause on disposals, now incorporated as Clause 151 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord McIntosh argued that a process of public notification and consultation was necessary in relation to proposed disposals. The amendment would have required notification in the London Gazette and local newspapers of the receipt of an application, and of the results of a determination. My noble friend Lord McIntosh described the fact that the clause made no provision for such public notification as "an astonishing omission" which was:
"out of keeping with the spirit of much recent legislation and with the Government's own proclaimed support for open government".—[Official Report, 8/6/89; col. 953.)
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, did not really deal with the issue of whether or not the public had an interest in knowing of proposed disposals and the planning implications arising from them. This does indeed seem to be an extraordinary omission. Public concern may be less with the transfer of ownership than with the possibility of development of land whether for housing or more intensive recreational use. This is precisely the sort of issue which generates intense public interest to which the Government seem largely to be insensitive.
I am sure that the Government ministers will by now be very much aware that these are the matters that excite interest and concern in the national and local press. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, at col. 975 dealt wholly with whether or not such a public notification procedure would be useful to the Secretary of State in reaching a view on whether or not a change of ownership should take place. We believe, having read the Minister's reply, that it reveals the degree to which the Government misunderstand the extent of public concern, and the particular sensitivity to possible development of land currently held by water authorities. The Government need hardly be concerned that the placing of an advertisement in respect of an uncontroversial piece of waste ground or a redundant site in an urban area will draw any substantial public reaction. They must accept, however, that a notice of sale in respect of an area of some scenic interest will naturally still be of concern to local residents. I remind the House of the Secretary of State's own experiences with controversy over the releasing of agricultural land

671
for housing development in the South of England in recent years. That should of itself have demonstrated to him that concern. The Minister chose to concentrate on the narrow issue of change of ownership. The much more important issue would be that of the consequences of such a change.
Accordingly, the amendments now tabled seek to explore further what appears to have been a wholly neglected area of the Government's thinking in drawing together the disposals proposals. The first amendment would give the Secretary of State the discretion to establish a local inquiry to report to him with recommendations in respect of a proposed disposal. The second amendment would require the Secretary of State to undertake public consultation and invite representations and publish notices of the consultative process.
I believe that if one is concerned about taking the public along with this legislation, rather than stripping the Bill of any onerous duties upon the prospective investors, one should appreciate that these amendments are sensible and reasonable. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, these amendments would provide that the consent powers of the Secretary of State for the disposal of environmentally sensitive land in Clause 151 should be subject to substantial obligations in respect of public consultation through advertisement in local papers, the London Gazettes and to the discretionary public inquiry procedures. We obviously have some sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The fact of our establishing a requirement of the Secretary of State's consent reflects acceptance that there may be significant issues of public interest involved. Clearly, relevant bodies should be consulted. The issue is how we achieve that in a simple and effective manner.
Our view is that this proposal is disproportionate. What we are considering here is the transfer of ownership which could have some hypothetical impact on certain landscape, conservation or amenity considerations. We are not considering substantial or immediate development proposals. For what is involved extensive advertising requirements and formal consideration of objections are excessive. That is too blunt an instrument.
Instead, we propose that before any consent is issued there will be a requirement, through the terms of a general authorisation, that the undertaker consult the Countryside Commission. That body is in the best position to advise whether, in the light of consultation with the NCC and other statutory bodies concerned, significant issues are raised by the proposal. Where appropriate it will no doubt seek the views of other relevant bodies or affected interests before recommending to the Secretary of State whether the consent should be granted, and if so, subject to what conditions.
I suggest that that is a reasonable, flexible and sensible approach. By contrast the noble Lord's proposal would mean that every time an undertaker
672
sold a car park or vehicle depot within the very extensive designated areas advertisement in the London Gazette would be required. We believe that to be excessive. However, I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord that we are taking due account of the need for consultation, and that he will not therefore consider it necessary to press his amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister rests his argument on the fact that the NCC will be consulted. Can the Minister tell the House what are the NCC's powers as regards consultation in these matters? How long do they have to respond? If consultation is to be meaningful there must be an opportunity for the NCC to consider whether it is competent to respond or whether it needs the views of others. Can the Minister help us?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the important point is that consultation takes place. I do not have with me information as to the exact period of time but I shall certainly let the noble Lord, Lord Graham, know.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I understand the Minister's difficulty in responding to that point. But the Minister will understand that he is asking the House, and the country, to accept that the mere process of consultation with the NCC will be sufficient to satisfy anyone who is concerned. The NCC itself may wish to have time for consultation. I wonder whether the Minister is now in a better position to give such an indication.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we shall specify a period in the general authorisation. Obviously, we shall take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is very wise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 157, line 20, after ("above") insert ("and subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments derive from consideration at Report stage of the Government's proposals for special protective controls of the disposal of environmentally significant land when I said that we would consider what could be done to clarify and extend the scope of the controls.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us which amendments he is speaking to?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 81, 83 to 86, 88 and 90 to 92. I apologise deeply to the House for not having said so at the start.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the grouping which we agreed, which includes our amendments, comprises Amendments Nos. 81 to 88

673
and 90 to 93. That includes amendments in my name, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and in the name of my noble friend Lady Nicol. We have the Government's agreement to speak to them all as a group and I hope that the Minister will also do so. That would make for a much more sensible debate.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I was just coming to the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised. I propose that it would be sensible for me to speak to the government amendments and at the end of the debate answer the opposition amendments, if that would be satisfactory.
Perhaps I may first draw the attention of the House to an error in the third line of Amendment No. 85, where the words "or the Minister" should follow the reference to the Secretary of State. That reflects the reference to the Secretary of State or Minister in subsection (4).
The government amendments make three proposals: first, Amendment No. 85 applies the Secretary of State's power to require to offer a first refusal explicitly to the two cases covered in the Government's announced policy: the sale of compulsorily acquired land and the sale of land within national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty, and, if other amendments are accepted, SSSIs. The other amendments provide for special controls on environmentally sensitive land to extend to all SSSIs. Thirdly, they correspondingly withdraw the reserve order-making power of the Secretary of State for other specific areas to be brought within the scope of the controls on an exceptional basis.
When the Government originally introduced the proposals at Report stage, I undertook to come back to the House at Third Reading on two related points: whether SSSIs could be brought within the scope of the protection, and more generally whether anything could be done in the terms of the clause to make it clearer and firmer in its effects. The amendments before you are the result.
I have emphasised that policy on water authority land must strike a delicate balance. It must meet the need for permanent protection of special environmental areas; it must not inhibit development for socially important purposes in the right areas elsewhere; and it must not inadvertently blight land valuations in circumstances where, as under our proposals, water customers will directly benefit from any sales.
This evening I shall seek to point out to the House two matters: first, that overall our amended proposals represent a better balance of various factors which must be weighed; secondly, that our amended proposals are overall a considerably better deal for the environment.
Before I deal with the specific terms of the amendments, perhaps I may reiterate the two fundamental aspects of our proposals. The first is the reason why we are singling out certain areas for protective controls and not others. We are doing so because certain types of water authority land, notably the upland catchments and important lowland reservoirs, have distinctive conservation
674
features. On such land water authorities have often done more by way of conservation, access and amenity than ordinary planning and countryside legislation could achieve. Elsewhere, on most ordinary utility land, that does not apply. Our ordinary planning and conservation legislation remains an important and sufficient protection.
The second consideration is the range of controls which should be available within those special areas. It remains our view that the variety of circumstances requires three alternatives: purchase by conservation bodies, management agreements or covenants which can cope with the variety of circumstances that can arise. In those three options, our proposals go beyond anything pressed upon us, but, in our view, rightly so.
I remind the House of those considerations as background to the three groups of amendments to which I now turn. I shall deal first with Amendment No. 85. It is the Government's policy that the Secretary of State of the day should have power to require that land placed on the market by undertakers should first be offered to particular bodies in two particular cases. The first is the case of compulsorily acquired land. In accordance with the Crichel Down rules, we believe it right that it should be offered back in the first instance to those from whom it was compulsorily purchased. The second case is the special circumstances to which I referred in respect of land in any designated area—the national parks, AONBs and SSSIs—where the Secretary of State, advised by the Countryside Commission, would have power to require that the land be first offered to a suitable conservation body, where the land is of particular importance and where protective ownership by a conservation body is the best way in which to ensure that it is indefinitely protected.
To cover those two cases, the earlier drafting of the clause went wide, as some noble Lords remarked. It could have implied that any land of any kind in the ownership of the undertakers, even if not compulsorily acquired or of special conservation or amenity value, would be subject to the power. That would be unreasonable and it was clearly right that we should ensure that the powers in the clause should match their announced and intended use. That is simply what Amendments Nos. 81, 85 and 86 achieve.
I now turn to the amendments which provide for the widening of the application of the clause to cover all SSSIs. We considered that with great care because it is a very substantial widening. As the House knows, we had certain doubts as to the need for it. SSSIs are exceedingly diverse and a high measure of continuing protection can be provided by the SSSI procedure itself. But, at the end of the day, we have felt it right to have regard to two particular considerations. First, the feeling of this House, which we believe to be that, in spite of the niceties of logic, it is safe and better that such sites should be covered and that, given the inclusion of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, it was invidious not to cover SSSIs also. The second consideration is the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, which believes that there will be circumstances in

675
which the existence of such powers, particularly in respect of covenants, would be very helpful to it.
Having regard to those considerations and, more generally, the fact that the water and land of the water industry represent a special resource for certain kinds of flora, fauna and habitat, we have felt it right to alter our proposals. The effect on the scope of the controls of bringing in SSSIs will be considerable. The Nature Conservancy Council has substantially completed its notification of sites on reservoirs, lakes and associated land and some 200 to 250 sites are now covered. The effect is that the number of significant countryside sites alone which are brought within protection increases by 40 per cent.
I must say that it is most unlikely that inclusion of so many sites would or could ever have been justified or even contemplated by the reserve order-making power. I must also say that most of the sites for which we anticipated using the order-making power are covered by the inclusion of SSSIs. In those circumstances, we had to question whether there was a justification for maintaining the discretionary power for the Secretary of State to include other sites by order. That risked causing uncertainty and confusion and, because of that uncertainty, it would also have an effect on the valuation of land assets and could ultimately reduce the financial benefits from the disposal of surplus lands which are now, under our proposals, to flow back in large measure to water service customers.
Having satisfied ourselves that, through the SSSIs, we have brought firmly into it the majority of sites for which an arguable case for inclusion might in future have been made, we concluded that more would have been lost than gained by preserving the discretionary power. The fact is that the extension of protective controls is so wide that the justification for reserve power for additional ad hoc designation no longer holds. The purpose that that would have served would have been to allow the full coverage of what the Countryside Commission has identified as the jewels in the crown; inclusion of certain other areas, upland moors and lowlands of value on landscape, amenity and recreation grounds; and inclusion on an exceptional basis of particular SSSIs. In practice, the inclusion of SSSIs secures substantial coverage of those three elements now and on a firm basis, rather than leaving it to an uncertain future decision.
SSSIs bring in almost all of the Elan Valley and most of Vrynwy, so that, taking account of national parks, AONBs and the proposed AONBs, all the "jewels in the crown" would now be covered. They also bring in many of the important lowland reservoirs such as Rutland Water and Grafham Water, which are important on access and recreation grounds as well as in terms of nature conservation, and a number of reservoirs and lakes in urban areas which are of value for amenity and conservation. As I have said, overall, we estimate that the net effect of the proposals will be to increase by around 40 per cent. the coverage of sites of countryside and amenity value.
676
Finally, I should like to emphasise one further point. There have been reports, either muddled or mischievous, that the effect of our proposals tonight is to reduce the protected area of the total water authority holdings from some 450,000 acres, which it is claimed the designation power could have involved, to the 170,000 acres of national parks and AONBs. That is simply wrong. I emphasise that of its very nature the reserve designation power could only be used exceptionally for isolated cases of land analogous with national parks and AONBs. If the argument is pursued in terms of acreages, then what we are now doing will increase the 170,000 acres by about a further 100,000 acres. That is more than is likely ever to have been covered by our earlier proposals, assuming that the Secretaries of State at the time had seen fit to make use of the reserve powers on that scale.
What we are proposing tonight is justified on four grounds. It avoids uncertainty and makes clearer distinctions. It draws firm and defensible lines reflecting clear statutory designations. It brings in now the majority of those sites, the inclusion of which might, on an exceptional basis, have been in future proposals. In substantially extending by some 40 per cent. the total sites covered, it provides wider protection than previously proposed.
For all those reasons it is a better proposal and one which is better above all for the long-term protection of the environment. I commend the amendment to your Lordships' House.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is curious that in making a speech in which he claims that there is such a major advance in government thinking, the Minister should have been so defensive. I remind the House that this whole matter has been the subject of intense concern since Second Reading and in Committee. It was as a result of pressure on the Government from all sides of the House that concessions were made on the disposal of land. I remind noble Lords that we on these Benches welcomed those concessions, although, as will be apparent, we felt that they did not go far enough.
Let me say without equivocation that we welcome the inclusion of the SSSIs in the provisions for restrictions on disposals of land, the pre-emption first option provisions and the other controls which are proposed. We recognise that in that respect the Government have moved significantly toward the position urged on them by their own colleagues and by my noble friends and other noble Lords from all sides of the House and particularly from the Cross-Benches. So, to that extent, we do not in any way want to minimise the value of what has been done by the inclusion of the SSSIs.
In his speech the Minister set out the extent of the protection, and it is useful to have it established in terms of the numbers of acres and the percentage of the total which is involved. But then, in an extraordinary shift, where the indication was that they were going to accept the pressure on SSSIs, the Government suddenly say that this will be at the expense of the power of the Secretary of State to designate other areas.

677
Again, I have to remind the House that the designation and inclusion of particular types of land in these provisions has two effects. First of all it affects the concession by means of which a relevant body, such as the National Trust, would be offered the land on a first refusal basis. Of course that provision will be available for SSSIs but it will no longer be available for designated areas. Secondly, the requirement for consultation with the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council will now be restricted to the national parks, the Broads, the AONBs and the SSSIs.
We welcome the consultation and the first refusal but for the life of us we cannot understand—and understand even less after having heard the Minister's speech—why the reserve power for the Secretary of State to designate other areas for inclusion in these provisions should now be taken away. The Minister was very candid with us. He said it was never the Government's intention to use the reserve powers to bring in anything like as many areas as will now be covered by the SSSIs, He said nothing about that when the amendments were introduced. Indeed a lot of the concern expressed at Report stage when these amendments were first introduced was defused by the fact that reserve powers were available to the Secretary of State and that he could designate areas if he thought it was necessary.
The Minister in his speech has chosen to use the examples of the Elan Valley and Lake Vrynwy. There are still 7,000 acres of the Elan Valley which will not be covered by the SSSIs and cannot now be covered by reserve powers. There is still about 50 per cent. of the 21,800 acres of Lake Vrynwy not covered by SSSIs or by any of the other designations which cannot now be covered by the reserve powers. There are 7,600 acres of the Washburn catchment in North Yorkshire and 9,700 acres of the West Pennine moors in Lancashire. So it is not a small amount of land that we are talking about. It is a very significant amount of land and it seemed to us—this may sound paradoxical to those of us who have been trying to get the Bill to be more precise and less discretionary—that to take away this discretionary power is to freeze the designation of land at June 1989 in a way in which it should simply not be frozen. The designation power ought not to have been taken away when the concession on SSSIs was given.
I am forced to the conclusion, without in any way impugning the honour of the Ministers concerned, that there is an element of switch-sell in this. We have been given something which the Government would undoubtedly have had to yield on a Division had it not been yielded by a concession of this kind. But it has been done in such a form that, quite rightly, it raises the suspicions of those who know most about our countryside and are most concerned about it. I am authorised by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who is very sad that he is not able to be here tonight—he is dining at Buckingham Palace—to tell the House of his fury that this change has been made and that the improvement as regards SSSIs has
678
been accompanied by the damage resulting from the removal of the designated areas.
For that reason I am urging upon the House my Amendments Nos. 82, 87 and 93, which deal with the designated areas while keeping the concession on SSSIs. In particular, I am urging the House to reject those government amendments which remove the designated areas from the face of the Bill.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I should like briefly to rise to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this matter. My name is attached to Amendment No. 82 for the simple reason that I too am unable to see why the Government should effectively say "thus far and no further". The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, spoke about jewels in the crown. I would suggest that we could do with a few more of those jewels in that particular crown. We should not shut the door on any area of expansion in this section, as we do not know what will happen in the future. An area that is now not regarded as being of great natural beauty or as worthy of inclusion in a national park may be so regarded in the future. I suggest that we should keep the door open to allow for future improvements and for any future steps towards greater conservation and greater protection. I urge your Lordships to support Amendment No. 82 and to oppose these government amendments.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Hesketh replies, I think that at the very beginning of his speech he said there was a mistake in Amendment No. 85. I wonder, when he winds up, whether he could tell me again what the mistake was. I did not quite catch it.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, his Amendments Nos. 82, 87 an .d 93 have the effect which all of us who wished to protect the SSSIs desired—that is, all those of us who wished to see SSSIs included in the specific protections provided by Clause 151—but without the penalty which is now being imposed by the Minister.
As my noble friend Lord McIntosh has said, we are grateful for the inclusion of sites of special scientific interest for all the reasons which we ourselves gave at an earlier hearing and upon which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, has now enlarged. But we are dismayed to find that the price to be paid is the loss of the general discretion—the discretion of the Secretary of State to protect from unsuitable development any undesignated areas which may later emerge, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, as important in terms of ecology or amenity. We cannot understand why it has to be "either/or".
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, gave various reasons, none of them very convincing, for why the discretion had to be lost; why we could not have extra protection for SSSIs without losing that discretion. My Amendment No. 91, to which no one has yet spoken, draws attention to a difficulty which could arise. For example, discussions are taking place about the need for a European directive on the protection of habitat, known as the Flora and Fauna Habitats Directive. Such a directive could identify sites of international importance to wildlife

679
conservation. The United Kingdom Government would be under a duty to protect such sites within their borders. The Government's proposal to remove the Secretary of State's general discretion would make such protection difficult. An amendment such as Amendment No. 91 becomes necessary if the general discretion does not remain.
I do not wish to seem ungrateful for the concessions which the Government have made, but it seems incredible that a power added by the Government only two or three weeks ago should be removed so soon. It is disheartening that every gain in conservation matters has to be fought for so hard and can be lost so easily. We question yet again the Government's commitment to environmental matters. It seems that they must always be last in the queue, a long way behind financial gain or political expediency.
All the protective powers in Clause 151 are hedged about by ifs and buts. There is no absolute protection for anything. As we now see, when certainty is introduced, it is a certainty in favour of protective developers and not of conservation. The reaction of the Countryside Commission, the National Trust, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the RSPB and others proves the value of the discretionary powers which could now be lost. I hope that the House will support the amendments of my noble friend, Amendments Nos. 82, 87 and 93.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I should like to give a warm welcome to the Government's proposed amendment which will bring all sites of special scientific interest within the safety net of Clause 151. The House will know that I supported an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, which sought just to do that. To that end I congratulate the Government on accepting the need to safeguard SSSIs which may become surplus to the requirements of the water industry. A number of conservation bodies were deeply worried that the wildlife value of many of the industry's lowland sites would deteriorate without there being a mechanism to help to guard against inappropriate land disposals, or without the ability to apply conditions relating to access or land management. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in particular considers that the proposed amendment will provide a basis for helping to safeguard many of the water authorities' lowland sites which are important to wildlife.
In welcoming the inclusion of the SSSIs into the scope of the disposal restrictions, I am particularly concerned by the Government's intention to withdraw the provision accepted by the House at the Report stage which would have retained a large amount of flexibility in the application of the new restrictions. If the Government's move to withdraw the power to designate areas outside national parks, AONBs or SSSIs is accepted, we shall have removed the only opportunity under the Bill to preserve recreation or the environment in non-designated areas.
My noble friend Lord Caithness kindly wrote to me to explain that sites of special scientific interest, which are now to receive protection, also cover many
680
areas of importance for recreation; that that would substantially meet the concerns expressed by the recreational bodies about land disposal. I am afraid that it does not. I do not think that the Government expect us to believe the proposition that recreation is best preserved by designating areas of high conservation value. After all, what about recreation in other areas? Do the Government really wish to leave themselves without a reserve power to protect areas of particular amenity or conservation value? We are considering a discretionary power which need not unduly fetter the Government or the water industry.
In persuading me that I should withdraw another amendment relating to preservation of recreation on water industry land the Government relied on the proposed power. In such circumstances I believe that it would be wrong for them now to withdraw the power. Much as I welcome the inclusion of SSSIs in the provision of Clause 151, I hope that my noble friend will accept the views of Members on all sides of the House on this important matter and will take steps to retain the power to designate areas under Clause 151.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I support what has already been said. It is a major concession in respect of SSSIs and I congratulate the Government on giving that power. I am worried about the ability of conservation bodies such as the RSPB to find the money to acquire such sites if they are put on the market. I am also worried about the market price which will be put on them. Already we know that the Nature Conservancy Council has reported to the Government, who are considering a loan, about whether some of the reservations which they now control and own should not also be sold to some of the voluntary bodies. With the best will in the world their finances are limited, as I well know. If suddenly vast tracts of land are to be offered to such bodies they will have an awful job to find the money to acquire and subsequently manage them. On the other hand, the concession is greatly to be welcomed.
The other side of the coin is most disappointing. There are always sites which suddenly come into consideration and which should have been scheduled in one way or the other. The flow country is a typical example which blew up in everyone's face when we saw what was happening in Caithness. Action was then taken and a great deal of money was put in by the NCC to deal with the problem. Recently we have heard about the Rose Theatre, but a year or so ago no one even dreamt of that situation and hardly knew it existed. Suddenly it is there and the Secretary of State had to become involved—I think reluctantly, but he did so.
We should not withdraw and lose the fallback situation and the flexibility of deciding that some sites which are not necessarily scheduled in any other way are important and should be preserved. At this late hour I beg the Government to think again about that matter. I congratulate them in respect of the SSSIs, which is a major step forward. I accept that totally. However, in respect of planning consent SSSIs have been lost all round. The figure is now

681
into the hundreds and they override the control which we thought existed. There will always be cases where people expect the Government to step in. They will probably throw them back and say that there is no legislation to cover the issues. I believe that that is a grave mistake.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was one of the many noble Lords who raised the question of land disposal on Second Reading. I warmly welcomed the amendment put forward by the Government to create protected areas. I also supported the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to include SSSIs. I am glad that the Government have agreed to make that change in the Bill. I believe that it is most important.
However, I am also dismayed by the proposal to remove the Secretary of State's discretionary power. Indeed, when I was first informed about it, I found it hard to believe. At first, I refused to credit the fact that it should be the Minister from the Department of the Environment who was making the change only two weeks after the Government had introduced it.
There are all sorts of cases which may arise concerning land outside areas of outstanding natural beauty, national parks or SSSIs which may be endangered for one reason or another and which may need to be protected. I believe that it is obviously sensible that the Secretary of State should have that reserve of power. To surrender that seems to me a profound mistake.
I give one example of the sort of problem which may arise in the sphere of conservation; that is, the case of a declining bird, the merlin, in Wales. There are only about 40 pairs left in Wales, and only a very small percentage of their breeding sites and hunting grounds on which their survival depends are included in SSSIs. If this already very rare bird continues to decline in number, we may be unable to do anything to protect it further, if proposals are made to use land in ways which would be damaging to its survival, if we dispense with that power.
It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government should have brought in this measure, on the one hand bringing in the very good change of including SSSIs and, on the other, the very bad change of getting rid of the discretionary power. I too ask the Government, even at this very late hour, to think again.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it not true that if an area of land conformed with the criteria to become an SSSI, it could be recommended for such status; and if it acquired that status, it would enjoy that protection under this Bill? If that is so, not only is there the protection enjoyed by SSSIs, as the amendment sets out, but there is also the assured protection should an area of land conform. However, I am not sure about that and I should like some confirmation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, perhaps I could first answer the question of my noble friend Lord Balfour concerning the error which I pointed out and which he did not pick up. The error is on the third line
682
of Amendment No. 85 where the words "or the Minister" should follow the reference to the Secretary of State. That reflects the reference to the Secretary of State or the Minister in subsection (4).
Perhaps I may then move on to Amendment No. 91, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. This amendment would provide that designated areas for the purpose of Clause 151 should include areas designated for the purpose of complying with international obligations relating no doubt to the protection of birds, wetlands and other Clause 8 matters. We believe that the greater part of the effect of this amendment is already achieved through the designations covered by this clause; that is, the national parks, the AONBs and the SSSIs. For that reason we do not believe that the amendment is justified.
It may be that the noble Baroness is referring to isolated individual cases which are not so covered. However, I suggest that it would be wrong to complicate the legislation by seeking cover those exceptions and, as I said earlier, we should try to draw clear and simple lines.
I accept that the RSPB put to the Government the case for including sites covered by international designations. However, that was only if we were unable to include SSSIs, which is what it most wanted and warmly welcomed. We take the view that inclusions of SSSIs would satisfactorily cover internationally designated sites. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand why we resist her amendment on that particular point.
I believe that it is fair to say that the only point at issue is the withdrawal of the discretionary power which would leave any areas at risk which would reasonably have been protected by it. Noble Lords have referred to various organisations and examples outside this House and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred particularly to the Washburn catchment among others. That is in a proposed area of outstanding natural beauty and will come into control if justified on that basis. With reference to the Pennine moors around Hebden Bridge, the chairman of Yorkshire Water has already confirmed publicly the intention to retain these within the utility companies and to preserve public access across them.
Rather than argue the toss the fact, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has pointed out, is that extension of protection is available. Far from being a power taken away with designation it is a power that has been superseded. I am slightly disappointed to have to come to the Dispatch Box in your Lordships' House and say that the Government wish to increase by 100,000 acres the area which will go into immediate protected status rather than possibly benefit from designation. We have the powers both for the extension of areas of outstanding natural beauty and, as my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, for further designation of SSSIs.
It is wrong to suggest that the figures, areas, acreages or places are frozen in terms of this week in 1989. There are the methods and the wherewithal available today and tomorrow to create and to protect those sites which are considered important.

683
We have gone a very long way. I believe that we have made a major contribution to the environment. There are methods to extend it even further without the power referred to this evening. We believe that we have flexibility for the future; we believe too that we have made a great leap forward in terms of nearly doubling the acreage that will go into perpetual protection.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 61.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hives, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Alport, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Joseph, L.

Auckland, L.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Knutsford, V.

Belstead, L.

Lindsay and Abingdon, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Middleton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rochdale, V.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fortescue, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haig, E.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hesketh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hampton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Blease, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Blyth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monson, L.

Galpern, L.

Moran, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Grey, E.

Mountevans, L.

684

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stedman, B.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Walston, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Shepherd, L.

Somerset, D.

Winstanley, L.

Stallard, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 157, line 37, leave out ("a designated area") and insert ("an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 84 and 85:
Page 157, line 39, after ("Commission") insert ("and, in the case of an area of special scientific interest, with the Nature Conservancy Council").
Page 157, line 47, at end insert—
("(5A) A consent or authorisation shall not be given on any such condition as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) above except where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the condition will have effect in relation only to—

(a) land which, or any interest or right in or over which, was acquired by—

(i) the Authority;

(ii) the water undertaker or sewerage undertaker in question; or

(iii) any predecessor of the Authority or undertaker, either compulsorily or at a time when the Authority, undertaker or predecessor was authorised to acquire it compulsorily; or

(b) land situated in a National Park, in the Broads or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 158, line 14, after ("a") insert ("company holding an appointment as a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 158, line 15, leave out ("a designated area") and insert ("an area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 158, line 17, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved this amendment on Report I explained that it was a simple change with a moderate but important aim:

685
to provide that when the Secretary of State considers whether to grant his consent to a land sale he should, in all cases, be bound by the general duties to the environment and recreation which are set out in Clause 8.
On that occasion my noble friend Lord Hesketh said that he had some sympathy with my concerns but that he felt my amendment went too far. He persuaded me to withdraw the amendment on the specific grounds, as he reminded your. Lordships' House, that the Secretary of State could by order designate areas of water industry land not falling within national parks or areas of natural outstanding beauty. He said that it was most important to keep that important power in mind. It was for that reason that my noble friend hoped I would not press the amendment.
I was therefore considerably disturbed, having been persuaded to withdraw the amendment, to see that the Government subsequently decided to withdraw the power to designate special areas. My noble friend Lord Caithness kindly wrote to me in an attempt to reassure me that the Bill would nevertheless provide full and effective protection for recreation. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that contention. It is now crystal clear that areas of lowland which may be of particular importance for recreation but which fall outside national parks and other special areas will have no protection whatever under the terms of the Bill should the land be sold. It is especially worrying that this type of land, now left starkly exposed by the way in which the Government have withdrawn their amendments, is the very land which is most likely to be sold off and developed by the water industry.
The remaining safeguard is that the Secretary of State must agree to the sale. But that is hardly reassuring when the Government are refusing to accept that the Secretary of State should be bound by duties to the environment and recreation when considering whether to grant his consent. My noble friend the Minister told me that the Government have had particular regard for the views of recreational interests in developing the code of practice and that the new water companies will have a positive incentive to provide for recreation. I still have doubts about the strength and efficacy of the recreation duties under the Bill. However, I acccept that the Government have moved a long way in extending protection for recreational interests on land in which the water industry has an interest.
My point is that such measures simply and abruptly end at the point where it is decided to sell the land. The decision itself is not even covered by the duties in the Bill. It is really no good to extol the virtues of protective measures when they can be ended by a simple conveyance.
Whether or not the power to designate areas of importance will return to the Bill, my firm belief is that the amendment is straightforward and reasonable, and one which the Government could accept without damage to the Bill or their privatisation plans. It does not aim to prevent land sales; it aims merely to bring recreational and
686
environmental considerations into the decision-making process when land is sold. It does not go as far as the Government's principal measures in the clause which extends protection in perpetuity. In view of the change of circumstances, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will now tell me that he can accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will explain why it is that, having been persuaded at an earlier stage of the Bill to include a power to designate an area, he, or the Government, have now changed their mind. There may be a good explanation and I think that we deserve an explanation. In any event, apart from that point, if the amendment were to be accepted it would have the advantage that the proposal concerned would have to be one, or could be one, for which the Secretary of State's consent or authorisation is required. For those two reasons, I think that my noble friend Lord Norrie is entitled to a full answer from the Government on the important case that he has made.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is to require that the Clause 8 duties—more importantly the duty to further conservation of flora, fauna, natural beauty etc.—shall apply to the Secretary of State's consideration of all disposals, not simply those which are within the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other designated areas.
As I said on Report, we have some sympathy with the noble Lord's concerns, but I have to say to him again that we think that the amendment goes too far.
The Clause 8 duties, particularly the duty to further conservation, are onerous ones. We believe that it is a proper duty to maintain on the undertakers in performing their duties and managing their land; but the question is whether it should carry through in all circumstances to the term of each and every sale.
Let me make the Government's position clear. In national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and SSSIs (areas 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.
We must not forget the position elsewhere—redundant sewage works in urban areas, for instance. There may be urgent need to develop that land for housing, employment or other important social needs. The existence of SSSI designations will protect flora and fauna. Over and above that, to have a duty to further conservation would go too far and could prejudice decisions which may need to be taken about the future use and development of the land.
It remains our view that we must strike an appropriate balance here. We believe that the main issues for conservation and amenity in the water industry estate will arise in the countryside catchment lands. Application of the duty is reasonable there. Elsewhere it is less appropriate, and could, as I say, inhibit proper consideration of

687
all those other factors—housing, employment and urban renewal—which must also be weighed in the balance.
With the inclusion tonight of SSSIs we have increased the scope of the Clause 8 duties in ways which will be favourable to recreation and amenity as well as conservation.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Renton asked about the removal of the powers which we discussed on a pevious amendment. As I pointed out then, and perhaps I may do so again, that amendment is superseded by the government amendment which places a further 100,000 acres in perpetual protection. That would not have been the case had we not introduced the amendments. It is because we feel that we have superseded the special powers and not replaced them and because we still have the powers in regard to areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest which can be extended to new and important sites that we believe that we have answered that part of the question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, may feel that in view of the various steps which we have taken he need not press his amendment.
10 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain in what way the very valuable addition of so many acres of sites of special scientific interest will make a great deal of difference to the areas available for recreation? SSSIs as a rule—but not invariably—are not places in which recreation is strongly encouraged. They are protected from too much intrusion. That is not universally true; but it is true of a great many SSSIs. To my mind at any rate it is not of such significance as the Minister tried to indicate when we discussed the possibilities for recreation.
Lord Hesketh: In answer to the noble Baroness's question, I can immediately off the cuff give two examples: one is Rutland Water and the other is Grafham Water, which provide enormous pleasure to thousands of people.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his full explanation. Under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 158, line 36, at end insert—
(" "area of outstanding natural beauty or special scientific interest" means an area which—
688

(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 an area in relation to which a notification given, or having effect as if given, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) for the time being has effect;

and the reference in subsection (5)(c) above to an area of special scientific interest shall, accordingly, be construed as a reference to an area such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this definition; and").
[Amendment No. 91, as an amendment to Amendment No. 90, not moved.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 158, line 38, leave out from ("1988") to end of line 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 160 [Duty to move pipes etc. in certain cases]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 96:
Page 167, line I, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,").
Page 167, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) Nothing in this section shall require a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker to alter or remove any pipe or apparatus which is kept installed in, under or over any street.
(2B) A water undertaker or sewerage undertaker may make it a condition of complying with the duty to which it is subject by virtue of a notice served by any person under subsection (1) above that such security as the undertaker may reasonably require has been provided for the discharge of any obligation of that person under subsection (3) below.").
Page 167, line 9, at end insert—
("(3A) Where any sums have been deposited with a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker by way of security for the discharge of any obligation under subsection (3) above, the undertaker shall pay interest at such rate as may be determined either—

(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.
(3B) An approval or determination by the Director for the purposes of subsection (3A) above may be given or made in relation to a particular case or description of cases or generally and may be revoked at any time.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 94, 95 and 96 en bloc. They are consequential upon Amendment No. 1.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 171 [Indemnities in respect of fluoridation]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 176, line 4, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97, perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 98, for which Amendment No. 97 is merely a paving amendment. Those noble Lords who were still around at about a quarter to eleven on Tuesday 13th June may remember that a number of noble Lords from various quarters of the House joined me in attempting to prevent taxpayers' money from being used to indemnify the privatised companies in respect of any costs or damages awarded against them by a court as a result of behaviour which resulted in an excessive amount of fluoride being added to the water supply.
In response, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, speaking for the Government, argued that the amendment as then drafted might catch a water undertaker who was accidentally responsible for a slight overdose. That was certainly not my intention. In the light of that possible ambiguity, I withdrew the amendment for further consideration.
The redrafted substantive amendment—that is to say, Amendment No. 98—will, I am sure, meet the Government's objections and those of certain Members of the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, argued at Report stage, at col. 1389 of Hansard, that although one milligram per litre was the optimal fluoride content, a content of slightly more than that level constituted absolutely no danger to health. That is why the Department of the Environment's standing technical advisory committee on water quality permits the content to fluctuate up to 10 per cent. above the optimum—in other words, to 1·1 milligrams per litre.
However—this is the important point to take on board—the Minister went on to concede that the standing technical advisory committee of the Department of the Environment stipulates that the fluoride content of the supply should never exceed 1·5 milligrams per litre. He revealed that this absolute maximum from the point of view of safety was also strongly endorsed by the World Health Organisation and by European Community directives relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption. Accordingly, we have modified the amendments so that they come into play, as it were, only when the fluoride content exceeds the absolute safe maximum, currently set at 1·5 milligrams per litre, as defined by these three prestigious organisations.
It is also important to note in this context that a recent addition of Probe, which is the journal of the General Dental Practitioners' Association, argues that the margin between a safe daily intake of fluoride and a potentially harmful one is impressively small. That is a further argument for keeping the maximum at 1·5 milligrams per litre.
We have further tried to accommodate the Government by substituting the word "negligence"
690
for the word "actions". Eminent counsel, from whom I have taken legal opinion, tell me that to be negligent in legal terms one has to be very negligent indeed. This runs the risk that a statutory water undertaker may be able to secure taxpayers' support following an overdosing incident which a lay person would consider negligent, but which was not strictly negligent in law. All the same, this seemed a risk worth taking in order to render the amendment more acceptable to the Government, whom we are leaning over backwards to try to accommodate.
Your Lordships will also notice that we provide for the safe maximum level to be revised periodically in the light of new medical knowledge. On Report, I reminded your Lordships that asbestos had been considered not only safe but positively beneficial for over 100 years, until about 10 years ago. The same can be said of butter and other animal fats. One might add that sunbathing was considered safe and indeed beneficial until a mere five years ago. In contrast, it was revealed only two days ago that cigarettes are positively beneficial to people suffering from Alzheimer's disease; in other words, safety levels recommended by doctors and scientists are always in the process of fluctuating. The right people to set a safe maximum level, and the most impartial people to do so, are, I believe, the World Health Organisation. It is worth noting in this context that on 15th October 1984, the World Health Organisation published a communiqué warning of the great toxicity of fluorines and recommending that they should not be used when they could be avoided.
The European Community, 75 per cent. of whose members oppose fluoridation, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, might well set even lower safety levels. However, as someone who opposes excessive harmonisation within the EC, I did not wish to take advantage of that particular loophole, tempting though it was.
There is one more thing to be said in connection with this pair of amendments. Although it does not think the amendments go far enough, and it would much prefer the total deletion of Clause 171, the political party which won 15 per cent. of the votes at the recent Euro election, and which probably has the support of a further 15 per cent. for some of its less radical proposals, fully endorses these amendments. I am grateful for that support, but it is not for that reason but because I believe that these modest compromise amendments will act as an incentive to privatised water undertakers to be careful with the health and well-being of the people they serve, that I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I had not intended to be tempted to get to my feet and say anything about this provision, as I do not think it is a good idea at this stage of the evening yet again to get into a fluoridation debate. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord who has moved the amendment, I feel that it would try the patience of the House if I, as a vice-president of the Fluoridation Society, were to reiterate the arguments in favour of fluoridation.

691
The amendment would reverse the effect of the new clause which the Government inserted at Committee stage which will indemnify the new water companies and enable them in some cases to continue using fluoride and in other cases to start using fluoride, without the danger of people who are not well informed seeking to sue them.
I should like to assure noble Lords that the supplementation of water supplies with fluoride to bring the level up to one part per million is probably the most widely researched and safest aspect of public health. Without going into the fluoridation argument, I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, I shall not go into the anti-or pro-fluoridation argument and I shall be brief. However, it seems to me that when certain subjects are discussed common sense goes out of the window. That seems to be the case here. All the amendment asks is that people who are careless of the public good should not be indemnified. All we say is that a water undertaking or employee who discharges considerably more than the recommended dose of fluoride into the water system should not be indemnified against being sued by a water consumer.
Anyone who has seen what happened at Camelford, where downright carelessness resulted in excess doses of aluminium, would surely agree that such negligence should not be indemnified by the Government. That is all the amendment asks. I should have thought that it was a commonsense amendment which the Government could accept and which this House ought to support.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that I can persuade the movers of these amendments that they are unnecessary and should be withdrawn. As I have said to noble Lords on previous occasions, fluoridation in this country is carried out according to guidelines laid down by the Standing Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality. Those guidelines impose an upper limit on the concentration of fluoride in the water supply resulting from a fluoridation scheme of 1·5 milligrams per litre. The upper limit allows a very wide margin of safety.
The guidelines provided for water undertakers require that the scheme should generally run at between 0·9 milligrams per litre and 1·1 milligrams per litre, and daily readings as high as 1·5 milligrams per litre would be most unusual. Water undertakers are obliged to keep within the guidelines, as the guidelines are written into the contracts which govern fluoridation schemes. If one of the daily readings shows a concentration of over 1·5 milligrams per litre the water undertaker will rectify this immediately by temporarily halting the supply of the fluoride compound. In fact, most of the plants operating in this country have systems which do this automatically.
It is important to put this whole matter in perspective. Short-term consumption of water
692
fluoridated at levels over 1·5 milligrams per litre has absolutely no ill effects. Indeed, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that a permanent level of 4 milligrams per litre still allows an adequate margin of safety.
I can understand noble Lords' concerns that the negligence of a water undertaker should not be indemnified by the Secretary of State. I would, however, point out that the terms of any indemnity granted must, under this clause, be approved by the Treasury. I therefore see absolutely no need for this extra statutory restriction on the Secretary of State and I would ask that these amendments be withdrawn. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will also see his way to withdrawing his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, seemed to imply that this was an anti-fluoridation amendment. It is not. It is an anti-excessive fluoridation amendment.
We reluctantly—I admit—accept that Clause 171 is in the Bill, but it is excessive, dangerous fluoridation that we oppose. I find it hard to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, thinks that it is no serious matter that excessive fluoridation should be tolerated, particularly bearing in mind the article in the journal of the General Dental Practitioners' Association to which I referred in my opening speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that it was most unusual for the upper limit of 1·5 milligrams to be exceeded and that, if it was exceeded, the water supply would immediately be cut off. I am bound to say that that is reassuring, but I doubt whether there would be no ill effects. The World Health Organisation does not seem to think so, nor does the European Community or the Department of the Environment's own committee on the matter. American scientists may claim otherwise, but that is not the view generally held in this country or on the continent of Europe.
I originally intended to test the opinion of the House on the matter, but in view of the strong hint from the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, that, were a privatised water undertaker to exceed that limit other than by a very small degree or on more than a very rare occasion and were it to be sued in consequence, the Treasury would refuse to grant consent for indemnity. That is the kind of thing that we want to hear. With that implied assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 190 [Local statutory provisions: consequential amendments etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 101:
Page 193, line 4, leave out ("or amend") and insert (", amend or re-enact (with or without modifications)").
Page 193, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) make provision applying generally in relation to local statutory provisions of a description specified in the order;").
Page 193, line 30, after ("(6)") insert ("Subject to the provisions of Schedule 26 to this Act,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I should like with the leave of the House to move Amendments Nos. 99, 100 and 101, en bloc.
These amendments are proposed in response to an amendment put down at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Amendment No. 100 makes provision for a general translation of water authorities' local statutory provisions to be made in an order under Clause 190 of the Bill. Amendment No. 99 enables water authorities' local statutory provisions to be consolidated, if appropriate. Amendment No. 101 qualifies subsection 6 of the clause to take account of the transitional provisions and savings in Schedule 26. If any noble Lord requires further clarification on the amendments, I shall most gladly give it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the changes.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 193 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 195, line 37, after ("1967,") insert ("the Capital Allowances Act 1968,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 197, line 45, after ("No") insert ("member or other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 198, line 16, after ("If") insert ("any person or ceasing to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Schemes providing for the Initial Transfers]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 205, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("so") in line 37 and insert ("Where a scheme under this Schedule for the division of a water authority's property, rights and liabilities comes into force on the transfer date, this paragraph shall have effect on that date").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Customer Service Committees]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 211, leave out lines 18 to 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House in moving this amendment I propose to speak also to Amendment No. 143. The purpose of
694
Amendment No. 143 is to provide for public access to meetings of the regional and local flood defence committees established under Clauses 136 and 138, to meetings of the NRA's regional rivers advisory committees established under Clause 2 and to meetings of the NRA's regional and local fisheries advisory committees established under Clause 140.
Schedule 4 paragraph 7 already provides for public access to meetings of the customer service committees by bringing these committees within the ambit of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. Following on from the debate at report stage on public access to the NRA's committees, we have considered these issues and I am satisfied that the application of this Act to the committees listed is the most appropriate way of meeting the genuine concerns expressed by noble Lords that these committees should be open and accessible to the press and public.
Amendment No. 109 is a technical amendment deleting reference to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 from Schedule 4 as this would no longer be necessary since customer service committees are covered by Amendment No. 143.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the Government for these amendments which not only take up the points we raised at earlier stages but in fact extend them further than we asked. They are very welcome and a real extension of accountability for these committees.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional Provision on Termination of Appointments]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 216, line 5, at end insert:
("( ) make provision applying generally in relation to local statutory provisions of a description specified in the order;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Sewerage Functions]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 226, line 16, at end insert ("and after the word "horticulture" in the words after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "fish farming".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Provisions relating to Meters etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 232, line 26, after ("premises") insert (", or any land occupied with those premises,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Consents to certain Discharges]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 118:
Page 239, line 24, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 25.
Page 239, line 26, leave out ("in the prescribed form").
Page 240, line 1, leave out from ("Authority") to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("to consider any written representations or objections with respect to an application under this paragraph which are made to it in the period of six weeks beginning with the day of the publication of notice of the application in the London Gazette").
Page 240, line 34, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
Page 243, line 3, leave out ("in the prescribed form").
Page 243, line 20, leave out from ("Authority") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("to consider any written representations or objections with respect to a consent under this paragraph which are made to it in the period of six weeks beginning with the day of the publication of notice of the consent in the London Gazette").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I should like with the leave of the House to move Amendments Nos. 113 to 118 en bloc. The amendments propose a number of technical changes to the procedure which the NRA is to follow under Schedule 12 in handling discharge consent applications.
Amendments Nos. 113 and 117 remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations the form of advertisement to be used by the NRA in advertising consent applications. We believe that the NRA is fully competent to decide this for itself and there is no need for the Secretary of State to make regulations covering it.
Amendment No. 113 removes the requirement that advertisement of an application should take place within two weeks. We believe that such a deadline could be quite unreasonable and impractical in certan circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 118 make clear that the six-week period referred to in paragraph 3 refers to the period within which they are to be made, not to be considered. In complex cases with representation coming towards the end of the six weeks, consideration may clearly need to extend longer.
Finally, Amendment No. 116 extends from three months to four months the period from the receipt of an application before which the application is deemed refused. For complex cases three months may simply be unreasonably tight, although we are sure that the NRA will make every effort to process applications quickly.
These amendments offer the NRA a little extra time and flexibility in the handling of consent applications. They prevent the Bill's requirements being—as we believe they might otherwise have been—unreasonable in some circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment no. 119:
Page 246, line 6, after ("section") insert ("107(1)(a) or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 119, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 120. I apologise for the fact that these amendments have not previously been tabled but I would have to say to my noble friend the Minister that this particular point has only recently been spotted.
Perhaps I may first welcome the provisions in the Bill at paragraph 9 of Schedule 12, which will enable
696
the NRA to levy charges on the "polluter pays" principle: that is something I am sure all Members of your Lordships' House would agree with. As I understand the position, in practice the NRA would submit a draft charges scheme to the Secretary of State for his approval but before doing so there would be a requirement to advertise the draft scheme. Those not satisfied with it would be able to object. Ultimately it will be for the Secretary of State to decide who will be required to pay, and how much. The Bill, quite rightly in my view, affords adequate protection for those who are likely to be charged under such a scheme. However, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, the NRA or the Secretary of State will not be able to formulate a charges scheme which is outside the framework of the enabling legislation. It is therefore vital that Parliament should get the framework right; and this brings me to the specific amnement which is before the House.
As presently drafted, any charges scheme would have to be confined to levying charges on those who actually make a discharge, as is referred to in paragraph 9(2). In other words, the NRA could not seek to charge a person who merely had a consent to discharge but did not in fact take advantage of it in any particular year. For example, as regards storm overflow consent for a sewerage works which may be used only, say, once in five years, I believe that the NRA should be able to make a charge on the person who has the benefit of the consent, although he may not actually take advantage of it each year. The fact that he does not use it may very well be taken into consideration in fixing the charges under such a scheme. However, that is a quite separate issue and not part of the amendments. I do not think it is one with which the House should concern itself tonight. What is important is that the enabling legislation should be in place.
Coupled with this amendment goes an amendment to paragraph 9(2)(b), since, without the deletion of the word "specified" in the amenement, the NRA would be able to charge only the original person to whom the consent had been granted. However, as the House will be well aware, COPA consents run with the land, so they last for many years. Some which are still in existence today are 30 or 40 years old. Inevitably during those years the ownership or occupation of such land to which the consent relates changes. Clearly the intention here was that the holder for the time being of the consent should be liable to pay, rather than simply the original person.
By accepting these amendments, and in particular Amendment No. 119, it would at least be possible to identify a person whom the NRA knew was entitled to be charged. That would give that same person an incentive to notify the NRA if someone else was actually making the discharge. My Amendment No. 120 would ensure that the appropriate person was charged. These are two very important amendments and I hope that my noble friend will see fit to accept them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, these amendments would seem to address two separate issues: the first concerns the power of the NRA to charge for the use

697
of a discharge consent. We accept that a problem clearly can arise if the NRA is not sure who has actually been using a consent. Under these amendments it would not be able to seek out the actual discharger. Instead it could impose the charge on anyone with a right to make use of the consent concerned. This would hardly be fair. Moreover, in so far as it encouraged the NRA to take a cavalier attitude to the identity of the actual discharger, it would have unacceptable implications for pollution control. If the NRA is to be able to prosecute the discharger for breaching the conditions of a consent, it will need to know who the discharger is. It would do the NRA no good to bring a prosecution against an innocent third party simply because that third party was entitled to use the consent.
The second issue to which these amendments relate is the case of discharge consents used on a most infrequent basis. Clearly it would be impossible to levy an annual charge for the use of such consents for those years in which the consents were not used. These amendments would instead allow charges to be levied for the mere right to use a consent. However, where consents were not used, the NRA would not need to carry out a monitoring programme in respect of which it would need to recover its costs. In any event, if there were some reasons why the NRA might incur costs in respect of consents not in use, it could always revoke them and grant new ones later when they were actually needed.
What my noble friend has identified are not defects in the Bill. They are the consequence of what is and has long been an essential feature of pollution control legislation—namely, that consents refer to the making of a discharge and do not limit to a named individual the right to discharge. Were we to tie consents to named individuals the whole structure of the legislation would need to change. Inescapably, therefore, we cannot follow the course of charging those who have a right to discharge, but must charge those actually making the use of a discharge consent at a particular time. As I have said, we believe that this is perfectly practical and need not cause any insuperable administrative difficulty. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will not find it necessary to press these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am disappointed with that reply. It seems to me that the person receiving the consent—that is, the person with the ownership of the consent—needs to be vigilant about how that consent is discharged or, in other words, about who will use it. I am absolutely in agreement with my noble friend the Minister that, whoever the polluter is, he should be penalised if the pollution is in breach of a consent or if it is unauthorised. But I should like to think that the owners of a consent would be as vigilant as possible about the way in which it was used.
My other amendment, which is intended to make sure that the appropriate person is charged, seems to me to be a very fair amendment. Ownership of land changes and a previous owner of 30 or 40 years back seems to me to be the most inappropriate person to be charged. I am very disappointed that my noble friend the Minister cannot accept the second amendment.
698
This is a Third Reading. I do not intend to press the amendments, but I nevertheless record my disappointment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Amendments of the Water Resources Act 1963]:
[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Drought Orders]:
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 259, line 15, leave out from first ("of') to ("for") in line 18 and insert ("a power to make discharges of sewage effluent or trade effluent in pursuance of any consent shall be made by the applicant for the order to any person who has been exercising that power").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Boundaries of Regional Flood Defence Areas]:
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 123 to 125:
Page 271, line 39, leave out ("public authority which") and insert ("person carrying out functions under any enactment who").
Page 272, line 8, leave out ("public authority (if any) on which") and insert ("person (if any) on whom").
Page 272, line 17, leave out ("public authority which") and insert ("person who").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments reflect points raised in the House by my noble friend Lady Blatch. By substituting the rubric "persons carrying out functions under any enactment" for the existing references to "public authorities", they will extend the range of bodies which will have to be notified. To take an example, if the NRA wishes to seek the Secretary of State's approval for a by-law under Clause 113 affecting a water undertaker's reservoir it will, as a consequence of these amendments, have to serve notice of its intention on the undertaker. Clearly, it is right that an undertaker should be notified in such a case. I therefore ask the House to accept these amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Powers with respect to the Laying and Maintenance of Pipes etc.]:
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 284, line 28, after ("only") insert (''except in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (5) below, after the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised has been given, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether such consent is or is not unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State; in the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (5) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 126, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 127, which ties in with it. It is important to speak to the two together. The amendments alter the rules in the Bill concerning the entry of plcs on to private land to lay pipes.

699
Clearly, under the Bill they may give reasonable notice and then carry on with the job.
Under the amendment the onus is upon them to receive the consent of the owner and the occupier, which consent is not to be unreasonably withheld, before they may enter the land. If consent is considered to be unreasonably withheld, there is a referral to the Secretary of State.
In the following amendment three exceptions are allowed for, at least two of which were raised by my noble friend on Report. The first is an emergency which may be connected with health or any other matter. It would then be unreasonable to have to wait for the consent of the owner or the occupier. The second is a requisition under the Act which is also understandable. The third and new element which I have introduced in the amendment since Report is a requirement that, should there be multiple negotiations which would make life too difficult for the pipe layer in carrying out the job, the Secretary of State can certify that reasonable notice is enough. I have included that requirement in the amendment particularly because my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the ring main around London.
Although at Report stage I was not taken aback, I did not then know much about the ring main around London. However, I have now found out a little about it. On average it travels 30 metres below ground and in most cases the rising mains come up on what will be plc property. They then join up to existing distribution points. I accept that there must be difficulties and extremely difficult occasions when it would be impossible for the plcs to negotiate with too many people. Again, that matter is dealt with in the amendment.
As I said on Report, from 1945 to 1974 the rules were much as they are in the amendment and they worked well. Since 1974 they have not worked particularly well. I am sure that they were put there with the best of intentions, but reasonable notice has not proved to be reasonable in any way whatever. In the country there have been difficulties with timing, planning, payment, reinstatement and all the matters that would have been better put right before the pipe layer ever entered the property.
I have read carefully the model code of practice. In its essential part it states exactly the same as is stated in the Bill. It is only a model code and under "Notice of Works" it states that:
"the undertaker shall as soon as reasonably possible endeavour to make contact with all owners and occupiers".
That is part of the trouble about which we are talking.
If your Lordships would like a comparison then look at the gas pipelines. I should have declared an interest, as should most noble Lords who are concerned with land. I have a number of pipes of one kind or another under my land and recently I had close experience of the ring main which carried gas around England in a distributor main. I looked at the letters from the agents of the gas authorities and they all begin by asking for consent.
It is not only one-way traffic. The fact that there is negotiation and consent is requested often leads
700
to the situation where the owner and occupier can be of help to the company in giving local and practical knowledge. I make no excuse for repeating the fact that this concerns not only big farms and estates but also small pieces of land.
I also make no excuse for repeating the case of Mr. Hatton who on 30th March was given notice that a pipe would be run through his bungalow. It was run through on 2nd May and the bungalow was destroyed. Rightly he was very upset and took the Esher Urban District Council to court. The action of the district council was upheld because it was considered that that was reasonable notice. So far as I am concerned that example alone is enough to alter this part of the Bill in the way that I have outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the issue is very simple; namely, whether the water companies should remain the only public utilities with compulsory powers to enter land or premises through which pipes are to run. There is nothing new in saying that they should not, and this amendment says that they should not except in emergencies or in special circumstances.
There is nothing new about that because, as my noble friend Lord Radnor reminded the House, the Water Act 1945 provided that entry onto land or premises to lay pipes required the consent of the owner or occupier. An order made nearly 30 years later gave the water authorities a much wider power to enter without consent after merely giving reasonable notice. Schedule 19 to the Bill transfers that power to the water companies, and that is what we object to.
I moved an amendment in Committee requiring the water companies to seek agreement, as under the 1945 Act. The amendment provided that in an emergency or when a pipeline is being laid to comply with a requisition under the Act, then there would merely have to be reasonable notice so that fast action could be taken.
The Government's objection at that stage was that, unlike British Gas and the oil companies, which operate very satisfactorily and without friction by consent, the water companies are operating in the realms of public health and therefore require compulsory powers. In Committee, we were also told that to avoid the conflict and grievances which have arisen under the post-1974 powers of entry, the Government propose a mandatory code of practice to regulate the behaviour of water companies which would also have to move pipes if they were put in the wrong place.
Like my noble friend Lord Radnor, I felt that a code of practice was not a sufficient safeguard and that it is much too late to be able to have pipes moved after they had been mislaid—if that is the right expression—or after some disastrous mistake had been made. All that could surely be avoided by proper consultation in the first place. It was my view that the Government's objections were taken care of by my amendment which I, nevertheless, withdrew for further consideration.
My noble friend Lord Radnor reminded us that on Report he moved a similar amendment which

701
was given support from all sides of the House. In his reply my noble friend Lord Caithness recognised the problems which have arisen through the arbitrary exercise of entry powers by the water authorities. My noble friend Lord Radnor quoted the extreme case of the Esher Urban District Council which wished to lay a pipe through the unfortunate Mr. Hatton's bungalow. It gave notice on 30th March and entered on 2nd May. The pipe was laid and that is the end of Mr. Hatton's bungalow, which was destroyed in the process. There were no negotiations and no consent although the UDC gave a month's notice. As my noble friend reminded us, that action was upheld by the courts.
On Report, the Minister reiterated the public health argument and the need for speedy action in an emergency. In my view that was allowed for in my noble friend's amendment on Report. However, the Minister produced a further argument which was cogent; namely, that where there is an undertaking like the London ring main involving a multitude of urban properties, it could hardly be expected to negotiate and reach agreement without enormous delay. I believe that my noble friend was right to recognise the force of that argument and to withdraw his Report stage amendment.
This amendment, as my noble friend reminded us, allows for other circumstances and these would surely cover a scheme such as the London ring main where the consent of the Secretary of State could be sought by the water companies in order to avoid delay. I very much hope that the Government will now be able to accept this amendment which cuts down what I and many noble Lords think are unacceptable arbitrary powers but which still allows for emergencies and special operations. I support my noble friend wholeheartedly.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there are strong practical reasons why reasonable notice should be given before there is entry on land for any of the purposes envisaged in this schedule; for example, growing crops, the presence of cattle, and various other work being carried out on the land. That is in addition to the ordinary courtesies expected in a civilised society.
As my noble friend Lord Middleton mentioned, and as the Government mentioned at an earlier stage, there are cases where it is difficult to identify all the owners. That applies not only in the case of urban land, as my noble friend mentioned, but, as I remember very well, on the fens. After the fens were drained over 100 years ago, part of them—a part I know well—was divided into fairly small plots and to this day it is not easy to identify the owner of each plot. As I understand it, my noble friend Lord Radnor has accepted that position. Although I am one of those people who regret having to go into too much detail in legislation, this paragraph of the schedule has gone into a great deal of detail and we might as well try to get it right.
Subject to what my noble friend on the Front Bench might say, I feel that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor is a very wise
702
attempt to try to get it right. I therefore hope that these amendments will receive sympathetic consideration.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am concerned about one aspect of the amendment. I hope I have read it correctly. I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 5 of Schedule 19, on page 284, dealing with stopcocks. I have the impression from reading the amendment that it might prevent an undertaker from even putting in a stopcock on private land. That is of concern to me because stopcocks need to be put in and often changed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, now that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has revised and watered down this pair of amendments to make them more acceptable to the Government I very much hope that the Government and the House will accept them. They would merely restore the position to what it was 15 years ago, prior to 1974, as the noble Earl reminded us.
Over the past 10 years the present Government have encouraged private individuals to stand on their own two feet. Most people would consider that by and large to be a good thing. However, the corollary is that private enterprise companies should also stand on their own two feet. Unfortunately, as the Bill stands, the private water companies are given the go-ahead to stand on other people's feet—and very heavily at that.
We are meant to be reassured by the promise of a code of practice but, as with estate agents, a code of practice has no legally binding force and leaves the way open for the less considerate and the less scrupulous to ride roughshod over the rights of individuals. This is particularly unsatisfactory where profit-making private enterprise firms are concerned. Platitudes about the public interest do not alter this fact. I hope that the Government will see the justice of the amendment. If, by some misfortune, they do not, I hope that the noble Earl will stick to his guns.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, some years ago in a similar situation I supported amendments to the Telecommunications Bill. Eventually, a government amendment was concocted which met our concerns. I wonder why the Government are being so inflexible this time. Exactly the same situation has arisen with the Electricity Bill. Perhaps the fact that different government departments have been involved with these Bills has something to do with it. Government departments do not get together very often to compare notes. That may be a reason why past experience does not seem to have had any effect in this instance.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to add my support to the amendment. It seems to meet all the points and objections made by the Government on this subject during previous stages of the Bill. It seems to protect the rights that should be protected while giving the Secretary of State all the rights that he needs. It seems to strike the correct balance between private rights and public duties.

703
While listening to the problem concerning the London ring main, and having read the second amendment, Amendment No. 127, it occurred to me that I am involved in the farming of some land which is subject to a lease drawn up in the 17th century. The Secretary of State would have some difficulty in identifying all the owners of the land in that case. This amendment meets such a difficulty. I am extremely pleased to support it.
Lord Addington: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the amendments for the simple reason that they seem to be fair and reasonable. The fact that if too many owners were involved or there was an emergency the consents would not have to be sought should cover everything. The owner should at least have the right to be consulted if somebody is going to enter his land.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is the third occasion on which we have debated this issue during our consideration of the Bill. I have to say that, although I very much appreciate that my noble friend Lord Radnor has again tailored his amendment to meet the remarks I made on Report, the effect of his latest amendment would be to impose extremely cumbersome arrangements on the Secretary of State and water and sewerage undertakers which would to a large extent defeat the object of the pipe laying powers.
The Secretary of State would be required by the amendment to determine whether it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain within a reasonable time the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised. In many cases the Secretary of State would be able to satisfy himself that this was so only after a lengthy process involving independent advice. This would be a time-consuming exercise which would offer scope for significant delays in pipe laying operations. The purpose of the powers to lay pipes on notice is to enable water and sewerage undertakers to put in place the infrastructure, often to meet public health needs, without the constraints that would be imposed if they were required to seek the agreement of all landowners concerned or use compulsory powers. The amendment would, I fear, open the undertakers to ransom demands from certain landowners—I agree not all—who would be willing to allow pipes to be laid on their land, but only at a price.
The more I look at the amendment—I have looked at it again while noble Lords have been supporting it—the more I feel that it would impose on any Secretary of State a most onerous burden and would place him in an invidious position. It would also open up a Pandora's Box of difficulty and potential objections arising from the Secretary of State deciding that he should exercise his power and the land owners saying that that was totally unreasonable and that they were just about to agree in any case. That would only lead to further delays and complications.
I appreciate that in raising this issue again my noble friend is concerned to ensure that the interests of landowners are fully protected. Indeed, I think
704
that Members of the House, from all quarters, are equally concerned about the matter. However, as I explained on Report, we believe that the new provisions in the Bill provide the protection that landowners have a reasonable right to expect: they ensure that the powers are not abused.
The powers are to be subject to a statutory code of practice to be submitted by the private companies to the Secretary of State for approval. These codes will be mandatory. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that such powers would not be mandatory. I must correct him on that point. These codes will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general. In addition, there is provision 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.
The interests of landowners are further protected by the provisions in Clause 160 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. 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. An undertaker will be able to recover its reasonable expenses.
I know from what has been said, the strength of feeling that there is about these powers. My noble friend Lord Middleton said that the water undertakers would be the only undertakers with such powers. They are, however, essential if water and sewerage undertakers are to be able effectively to meet the operational and public health responsibilities placed on them and to enable them to comply with EC requirements.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked why this legislation appears to be different from the Telecommunications Act. I covered that aspect at some length during the earlier stages of the proceedings on the Bill. However, perhaps I may just repeat that I remember acting for and against water authorities where they were laying pipes under the Public Health Act 1936—rather than subsequent legislation—for the very reason of having to meet a public health concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning and myself have been at pains to amend the Bill so as to take into account such concerns. I realised at first hand, when I was a land agent, that the concerns which landowners faced were very real. However, having considered the matter we think that it is right that they should still have such powers; but they are substantially different from the powers under which the water authorities would have acted in the case of which my noble friend Lord Radnor reminded us.
There has been a major and fundamental step forward. I believe that, with the new provisions we have included in the Bill, we have now struck the right balance between the need to ensure that

705
landowners' interests are protected and the reasonable needs of undertakers.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he say whether the code of practice will be enforceable in a court of law?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, the code of practice will be mandatory and the powers will be subject to the oversight of the director general rather than the courts.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords from all quarters of the House who have given their support to the amendment. I must confess that I am not convinced by my noble friend's explanation about how difficult it would be as regards time, and about the difficulties that the Secretary of State would face.
While my noble friend was speaking, I read the amendment again very carefully. I just cannot see anything there as regards what he said, except that his explanation is an exaggeration of what might happen. I still make the comparison with gas and all the other concepts which work perfectly well in practice, and which are reasonable, far more democratic and sensible than that which is written into the Bill. What is written in the Bill will not lead to efficiency; indeed, there is a danger that it will lead to inefficiency and petty arrogance. On that note, I must ask for the opinion of the House.
11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 126) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Alport, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Middleton, L.

Carter, L, [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Chorley, L.

Monson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Moran, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Craigavon, V

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Radnor, E.

Falkland, V.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gibson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Somerset, D.

Grey, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hacking, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Kennet, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wynford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

706

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Henley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hesketh, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Joseph, L.

Boardman, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Crathorne, L.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Gridley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haig, E.

Young, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.8 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 284, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) The circumstances in which powers shall be exercised only after reasonable notice as provided in sub-paragraph (4)(a) above are—

(a) in an emergency; or

(b) when a pipe is laid in order to comply with a requisition under this Act; or

(c) where the Secretary of State determines it would be exceptionally difficult to obtain within a reasonable time the consent of every owner and occupier of the land where the power is to be exercised and so certifies.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Orders conferring Compulsory Works Powers]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 289, line 36, after ("copy") insert (", together with a plan showing the general effect of the draft order so far as it relates to the footpath or bridleway,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 130 to 134. These amendments follow an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, at Report stage, to consider further the amendments he proposed to Schedule 20 to the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 128.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank t he noble Earl for these amendments and for implementing the promise he made at Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 144:
Page 290, line 31, leave out ("and").
Page 290, line 36, at end insert—
("(f) such other persons as may be prescribed.").
Page 290, line 52, at end insert ("and of any relevant map or plan").
Page 291, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) Where, on an application for an order under section 154 of this Act, the appropriate Minister refuses to make an order, the applicant shall, as soon as practicable after the refusal, notify the refusal to every person on whom the applicant was, by virtue of paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) above, required to serve a copy of the notice with respect to the application.
(5) The duty of a water undertaker under sub-aragraph (4) above shall be enforceable under section 20 of this Act by the Secretary of State.").
Page 291, line 45, at end insert—
("Notice after making of order
4A.—(1) As soon as practicable after an order under section 154 of this Act has been made, the applicant for the order shall—

(a) publish a notice of the making of the order, at least once in each of two successive weeks, in one or more newspapers circulating in each relevant locality; and

(b) not later than the date on which that notice is first published—

(i) serve a copy of the notice on every person on whom the applicant was, by virtue of paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) above, required to serve a copy of the notice with respect to the application for the order;

(ii) in the case of an order authorising the stopping-up or diversion of a footpath or bridleway, cause such a copy, together with a plan showing the general effect of the order so far as it relates to the footpath or bridleway, to be displayed in a prominent position at the ends of the appropriate part of the path or way.

(2) The notice required by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above to be published with respect to an order under section 154 of this Act shall—

(a) state the general effect of the order;

(b) in the case of an order made wholly or partly for the purpose of enabling any discharges of water to be made—

(i) contain particulars of the discharges, stating the purposes of the discharges and specifying each place of discharge;

(ii) specify the places at which the water to be comprised in the discharges is to be taken and the treatment (if any) which the order requires the water, or any of it, to receive before being discharged under the order;

(iii) state the effect which, in the opinion of the applicant, the discharges would have on the flow, level and quality of water in any inland water or underground strata; and

(c) specify a place where a copy of the order and of any relevant map or plan may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable times.

(3) Where an order under section 154 of this Act has been made, the applicant for the order shall, at the request of any person and on payment by that person of such charge (if any) as the applicant may reasonably require, furnish that person with a copy of the order and of any relevant map or plan.
(4) The duties of a water undertaker under this paragraph shall be enforceable under section 20 of this Act by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this paragraph "relevant locality", in relation to an order made under section 154 to this Act, means—

(a) any locality which is affected by any provision made by the order for the purpose of enabling any engineering or building operations to be carried out; and

(b) where provision is made by the order for the purpose of enabling discharges of water to be made, each locality in which the place of any of the discharges is situated or in which there appears to the applicant to be any inland water or underground strata the flow, level or quality of water in which may be affected by any of the discharges.").

Page 292, leave out lines 8 to 23.
Schedule 22, page 303, line 46, leave out ("it is") and insert ("they are").
Page 306, line 48, after ("(d)") insert ("may,").
Schedule 23, page 312, line 1, leave out from ("(b)") to ("make") in line 2.
Page 313, line 34, after ("above") insert (", or in a notice under section 104 of the Water Act 1989,").
Schedule 24, page 339, line 41, leave out ("public authorities") and insert ("persons carrying out functions under any enactment").
Schedule 25, page 342, line 48, leave out ("Schedule 10") and insert ("Schedules 10 and 20").
Page 345, line 51, leave out ("under section 100(3)") and insert ("made for the purposes of section 100(2)(c)").
Page 352, line 12, at end insert—
("The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (c.67)
In paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which Act applies in England and Wales), at the end there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(i) regional and local flood defence committees;

(j) advisory committees established and maintained under section 2 or 140 of the Water Act 1989;

(k) customer service committees established and maintained under section 6 of that Act.";

and the functions of those committees shall be regarded as public functions for the purposes of that Act.").
Page 368, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Part XIII of that Act (arrangements and reconstructions) shall have effect in relation to statutory water companies that are not limited companies with such modifications as may be prescribed; and in this paragraph "statutory water companies", in relation to any time before the transfer date, has the same meaning as in the 1973 Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 130 to 144 en bloc. I believe they have all been spoken to.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 383, line 17, at end insert—
("(7) Where the rights and liabilities in respect of any such consent are transferred to a water authority's successor company in accordance with a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act and the conditions of that consent include one or more of the following, that is to say—

(a) a condition that requires that authority to take samples of any matter discharged;

(b) a condition that requires that authority to furnish any person with information about samples taken by that authority; or

(c) a condition that is contravened where there is a failure by more than a specified number of samples taken by that authority to satisfy specified requirements,

then any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above shall cease to have effect on the transfer date and any such condition as is mentioned in paragraph (c) above shall have effect on and after that date as if any samples taken on behalf of the Authority in exercise, at any time on or after that date, of a power conferred by this Act, but no other samples, were the samples falling to be taken into account for the purposes of that condition.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 145 invites the House to do two things. The first is to make amendments to the terms of existing consents for sewage treatment work discharges and to eliminate references to water authorities

709
themselves taking samples of the effluent discharge which could be inappropriate to apply to the private sewerage undertakers. After the transfer date it will be for the NRA to take such samples. The second is to put beyond doubt that where a work's compliance is judged by a programme of samples taken over a relevant period, on and after the transfer date, only samples taken by the NRA shall count as a basis for prosecutions of the new companies. In other words, the new bodies and their staff shall not be liable for acts and omissions of their predecessor bodies.
Amendment No. 146, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks in short to achieve the opposite effect to the government amendment. In retrospect, the Government should perhaps have foreseen that, as this amendment touches on controversial issues, it would evoke more controversy than the normal run of transitional provisions, even though it is a simple, fair, natural, and indeed inescapable proposal.
However, in the light of the disproportionate response it has evoked, and the noble Lord's counter amendment, I clearly cannot now limit myself to the brief factual account I had intended. The record must be set straight, and I must therefore ask your Lordships to be a little patient with me, even at this late hour, so that I can deal with some of the wilder accusations which have been raised.
Let me deal first of all with the accusation that this is some ploy, furtively slipped in at the last moment, to assist privatisation. Yes, it does come at the last moment but that is the inevitable fate of a transitional provision, especially one which applies not to the primary legislation, not even to secondary legislation, but to instruments made under it. Maybe, even in a Bill of this great scope, we should have got every detail right and overlooked nothing, however detailed and remote. But the impossibility of that is part of the need and justification of your Lordships' House, and I see no need to apologise for troubling the House with this matter.
Let me now turn to the real matter of substance. I shall not long delay the House on the first two provisions of the amendments. These simply disapply from consents certain provisions concerning monitoring and reporting by the water authorities. It is surely utterly self-evident that, with the establishment of the NRA, it would not be appropriate for the undertakers to take their own samples and to report on their own performance to the Secretary of State. Consequently, these provisions should go.
The remaining provision deals with circumstances where compliance with discharge consent standards is assessed over a series of samples taken over a 12-month period, for instance the look-up table system used for sewage treatment works discharges. All it does is to secure that the new company shall be liable only in respect of discharges it makes. In other words, the relevant period for assessment of compliance shall begin with the establishment of those companies. The effect of this is no more than to secure the operation of basic natural justice, that new companies shall not be liable for actions of a different corporate body and its different executives
710
and directors some 12 months previously, going back even before legislation to establish those companies was published, let alone enacted by Parliament.
I ask one simple question: how could we ever have contemplated that we could, in fairness and propriety, consider any other possibility? And of course, we did not, The provision before your Lordships simply makes clear that the ordinary principles of justice are to apply and reflects the implications of paragraph 58 of Schedule 26 that criminal liability does not pass to the successor bodies.
Be all that as it may, it is said that the principle produces unacceptable results, that the companies have "immunity" for a year, that the NRA is crippled at birth, and other such unrealistic arguments. These bear no relationship to the facts. There are four principle reasons for this. First, and most important, there will be no immunity in the early stages of the companies' life. It is quite wrong to suggest that the companies will be able to discharge what they like and get away with it. Companies will have to comply with the terms of their consent conditions from the outset, and failures will go on the public registers. Non-complying samples will clock up against them. They will not be discounted. If the record reveals non-compliance over the sampling period, the NRA will be able to bring prosecutions in respect of breaches of the discharge consents for that period.
Secondly, discharge consents for all works now non-compliant, or at a high risk of non-complying, which are varied for the period improvement works are in progress, will in any case include so-called "upper tier" limits. This is a new environmental safeguard, a single breach of which—I repeat, a single breach of which—will open 1 he company immediately to the risk of prosecution. As well as being an important environmental safeguard, this will provide the NRA with a new enforcement mechanism for these works.
Thirdly, in the case of all the other works with no history of non-compliance, it is unlikely that samples taken by the water authority before the transfer date would have any significance for prosecution purposes. It is true that the NRA would need to take samples over a 12-month period before bringing a prosecution, but it is the position now that compliance for sewage treatment works has to be assessed retrospectively over a 12-rrionth period. There is nothing new in that. In practical terms we must remember that prosecution is a tool of last resort. While this will be a matter for the NRA, early evidence of non-compliance is likely to be a trigger for investigation and discussions with the discharger. The NRA, under its normal enforcement policy, would want to go through a number of stages, including warnings, before contemplating prosecution.
Finally, the Secretary of State is enabled under paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to direct the NRA at any time to revoke or vary consents when it appears to him appropriate to do so for the protection of public health or flora or fauna. In the event I hat the NRA was seriously concerned about a particular discharge and about constraints within the consent on its ability to take enforcement action, it could draw the

711
case to the attention of the Secretary of State. It is likely that it would be open to him to direct the authority to revoke or vary the consent, perhaps by imposition of an "upper tier" limit, breach of which would make possible immediate enforcement action.
For these four reasons, I tell the House once more that any argument that the NRA will be significantly impeded in its enforcement role by the terms of this amendment is wholly without foundation.
On all those grounds, there is no reason why we should not proceed on the basis set out in the amendment. There is one overwhelming reason why we should so proceed. How could the NRA or anyone else conceivably justify prosecuting a company on the basis of evidence relating to the actions of its predecessor, a body legally distinct from it and in important ways quite different? To attempt to do so would surely be quite unjust.
What the Government propose in this amendment is the only fair and proper course. It is the only course consistent with the provision already in the Bill that criminal liability shall not pass to successor bodies. That was an amendment which was agreed without any discussion at all. It is the only course consistent with legal principles which have always appeared important to this House. Above all, it is a way forward which holds no risks for the NRA, for pollution control or for its effective enforcement. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, Amendment No. 146:
Line 13, leave out from ("in") to end of line 19 and insert ("those paragraphs shall have effect on and after the transfer date in the same manner as before that date, except that any reference to samples taken by that authority shall be taken to mean samples taken by the National Rivers Authority insofar as it refers to samples taken after the transfer date").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an astonishing story. It is one which reflects no credit on the Government and no credit on those who have advised the Government. At the very best this is a story of negligence in the drafting of legislation. It leaves us now, as the Minister himself has admitted, at the very end of the last stage, with a new provision which is not dependent on any amendments which have arisen during the course of the consideration in your Lordships' House, which could have been introduced at any stage in another place or here, and which is only thought of at the last minute and is presented initially as being purely a transitional amendment.
When I was first told that it was a transitional amendment I took that at face value. It was only at the very last minute, at lunchtime on Friday, that I realised that something was wrong. I immediately took the precaution of having a telephone call made to the Minister's staff to ask whether the amendment meant what we thought it meant: that there is in effect immunity from prosecution for 12 months after privatisation. The answer my staff received was that somebody would telephone them back. No reply
712
came until after 4.30, which was the last moment for putting down amendments on Friday and for giving the Government a sensible opportunity to consider amendments.
We were therefore forced to put down an amendment and to the conclusion that our analysis of the Government's amendment was correct. Looking at the amendment, I think that noble Lords will agree that it is virtually inpenetrable. It is couched in such detailed, complex prose that it is virtually impossible to tell what it means.
But what the amendment means is now clear and has been confirmed by the Government. It means—and this has been confirmed by the Minister from the Dispatch Box this afternoon—that the sampling procedures which have been debated at length in the House and which require that samples of river water quality shall be built up over a period of 12 months shall come to a full stop at the time of privatisation. Those samples which have been—to use the Minister's phase—clocked up over the period up to privatisation shall be of no account, and we shall have to start again.
The 12-month period starts from day one on the day of privatisation. However much may be clocked up, nothing can happen until the 12 months of sampling have been completed. That means that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution—and all the provisions that have provided for the enforcement of clean rivers in this country—cannot achieve its full effect by prosecuting breaches of river water quality until a period of at least 12 months has passed. Bearing in mind the time that the provision will take to become law and be enforced afterwards, it will probably be a period of significantly more than 12 months.
The only arguments that are advanced in opposition to that view seem to me so pathetic that I hardly dare to refer to them. The first argument is that it is unfair—if you please—to the plcs that they should be saddled with the testing and the deficiencies of their predecessors. Those plcs are composed, in a realistic sense, of their predecessors. They are inheriting the staff, fixed capital, assets and customers of the existing water authorities. In what way should their obligations to achieve adequate river water quality be exempt from all of those other assets and liabilities, rights and obligations that they are inheriting at the time of privatisation? There is no conceivable reason why they should be exempt in that way and not in any other way.
The second argument is that because the plcs are a separate entity, there is something unconstitutional—it was even suggested—in them taking over the liabilities. The Government have abolished local authorities and created new authorities with the rights and responsibilities of their predecessors. It has never been suggested that it was unconstitutional for new local authorities to have the liabilities of their predecessors and to be subject to enforcement procedures against the deficiencies of their predecessors. It has always been accepted that, when they take over the rights and liabilities, they take over those liabilities complete, including, if necessary, the liability to face prosecution for defects.
If the Greater London Council had not been responsible for the faults—if they existed—of the London County Council, the London Government Act 1963 could not have been put through. If the successor authorities at the time of the Local Government Act of 1986 had not been responsible for their predecessors, then those Acts could not have been put through. It is a nonsense in law to suggest that the new authorities that are taking over the rights and turning them, it is supposed, to profit, must not also take over the responsibilities and, with those responsibilities, the legal liabilities.
The people who are forgotten in all of this and who were never mentioned once in the Minister's speech are those who suffer from poor river quality; namely, the people of this country. It is those people who demand that there should be continuity. They demand that the Government should accept the responsibilities of privatisation. They have not asked for privatisation. It is this Government who are insisting on privatisation. They must demand that there is continuity of responsibility and of enforcement of river water quality. They must and do demand that this amendment be carried and that the Government are not allowed to let the new water undertakings off the hook. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Amendment No. 146, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has already said, tries to bring back what may be regarded as the status quo. The new plcs are taking over the old water authorities' plant and their responsibilities in regard to providing good water quality. It would seem absolutely ludicrous if this continuity were brought into question by saying that there is a cut-off point for switching responsibilities from one to the other and that the creation of the new plcs produces entirely new entities. Effectively, they will be run by the same people and with the same plant.
I have always regarded greater protection of the environment as one of the few benefits provided by this Bill. If we do not accept this amendment we shall be allowing a gap of possibly up to 12 months when considerable damage could be done. I suggest that we accept Amendment No. 146 for reasons of continuity and give support to those who seek to maintain our river quality.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that there has been considerable over-emotion on this subject. To suggest that this is not a transitional arrangement is simply not a serious statement. This is a transitional arrangement and the year of grace suggested in Amendment No. 145 is not a year in which nothing will happen. Those of us who oppose Amendment No. 146 do so because we see the year of grace as a year in which the improvements that we all want to see will take place. We all know that there are some sewage treatment works which do not comply with their consents. Therefore, something must be done.
It is wrong to suppose that on the day that the companies are formed they will automatically be in breach of their consents and therefore liable to be sued. What is absolutely right is that some time should be given so that the companies bring all
714
sewage treatments into line. In fact there is already a programme in train to bring discharges up to consent levels. As a House we should insist that that improvement continues.
I believe that to put one year on that time for improvement is absolutely right. If we really want to achieve improvement and not simply knock the Bill at this stage, then, instead of settling for what I believe is the art of the impossible, we should be going for the art of the possible and bringing about the improvements.
It is a matter of going for what is practicable and what is assuredly achievable. That covers also one of my objections to putting the year 1993 as the time for bringing drinking water up to quality standards. In my opinion this one year of grace—and I hope that it is just one year that the Government give—for the water companies to bring all their water sewage treatment works up to consent levels is something that should be supported by the House.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has gone rather over the top in his objection to this amendment; I hope that his argument will be opposed.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as I understand it this government amendment, if it goes through, means that the newly established private water plcs with their exemptions cannot be prosecuted for pollution on the basis of samples taken by the NRA, the Anglers' Co-operative Association or any other independent body, for at least 18 months after this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
As chairman of the Anglers' Co-operative Association I expressed my concerns at Second Reading. The use of samples, tripartite samples, and look-up tables is essential to provide evidence for the polluter to be prosecuted. The ACA has been in existence for 40 years. It exists to fight the anglers' cause when their fishing waters are polluted. This amendment, if accepted, will take away the tools that we require to do the job. The effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority will be equally adversely affected. Indeed it has already been stated by the Minister that there is bound to be a twelve months' stoppage of anti-pollution prosecutions. It will provide the plcs with a major prosecution-free holiday at the expense of the health of the nation. It will place handcuffs on the NRA and tie ACA.
The main objective of this amendment is to protect all the new privatised companies from prosecution when they pollute rivers with effluents from sewage works, because the NRA and the ACA will be unable to use pollution evidence gathered from and by the present water authorities before the act of privatisation. I really believe this to be a cynical move at this late stage of the Bill and I believe the Government are frightened that investors will shy away from a purchase without these prosecution exemptions; so it is a blatant attempt to buy off the investor.
This is how the ACA and the NRA will by stymied under this amendment. So far prosecutions have been brought against the water authorities under

715
Section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act. Evidence has to be sought that a breach of the conditions attached to their consents for discharge of sewage effluent has taken place, and also that there have been more than the permitted number of breaches in one year, working back from the one breach complained of. Secondly, a reference to a look-up table to check the number of breaches is required. These are going to be denied to the National Rivers Authority and the Anglers' Co-operative Association in any effective manner for twelve months, just as the Minister stated.
The effect of this government amendment is twofold. The Government want the plcs to start with a clean sheet. In other words, the NRA and the ACA cannot have information of the last twelve months' samples or the use of look-up tables. Therefore no prosecutions can take place against all those exempted sewage works for at least eighteen months. Twelve months have to elapse before the new sampling regime can begin to act, and a further six months are needed to collate the evidence and prepare the cases for court. What is more, cases in the prosecution pipeline, those pending and in preparation, are likely to fall. Existing offences will be written off. Already the legal sub-committee of the ACA is experiencing delays by some of the water authorities refusing to move on some of the legal cases that are pending. The ACA legal sub-committee has met today to consider 41 cases of pollution, and the water authorities, where they are affected, are, I suspect, purposely being unco-operative in the hope that their cases will fall.
Already applications have been made by all ten water authorities for relaxations of the conditions attached to their consents to discharge sewage effluent in respect of problem sewage works. Over 500 applications have been made. There are 6,400 sewage works: all of them might claim immunity from prosecution for river pollution. The water authorities have already admitted over 500 because they have sought special immunity for them for at least twelve months, although it would appear that more than 1,000 problem sewage works are wanting at least a 12-month amnesty from prosecutions.
I thought this Bill was giving us the opportunity to stop the polluter being protected by his own water authority, with the water authorities being both poacher and gamekeeper, but now this is clearly not so. Twenty per cent. of sewage works regularly discharge illegal effluent, and many of them would and should face prosection as private companies. I believe this is a cynical rescue operation to save the water privatisation programme, to save the sell-off. It has now become a sell-out, ditching the environmentalists.
The most guilty polluters, those who have poisoned our rivers for years, are going to be allowed to carry on polluting and discharging filthy effluent into our waterways in order to effect a more attractive flotation prospectus. I believe that to be the truth of the matter. That is why this amendment came in late; that is why it has been bandied about in the press by the Government as a technical amendment. But what I have said is the truth of
716
the matter. It appears to be a last minute panic amendment to save the privatisation programme, irrespective of the damage that it may do to our people's health. I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies, will allay all my fears and my concerns about these consequences.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am seriously disturbed by this amendment. It seems to me that, in an effort to protect the plcs from criminal actions based on the quality of sewage effluents before vesting, the Government are giving them, under this amendment, complete immunity over a period of at least 12 months. That seems to me to be wrong.
As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the one exception is where relaxed consents are given, which I think applies to about 15 per cent. of all sewage effluents. In that situation, as I think he told us, an upper tier value will be applied which, if it is exceeded, will form the basis of an immediate prosecution.
My understanding is that the HM Inspectorate of Pollution and the NRA suggested a level for this upper tier value of somewhere between 1·5 times to twice the consent value, but that the water authorities are asking for a much higher value of something like three times. If that is true, I am told that in at least one NRA region in 50 per cent. of the works where conditions are being relaxed the consent value when converted to an upper tier value three times higher will have a strength greater than raw sewage. It would therefore be possible for a plc to discharge raw sewage before screening and not exceed the upper tier limit for the works in question.
I think that would be an intolerable situation, if it is right. What worries me very much about this is that it will start the NRA off on the wrong foot. The Government have constantly said throughout the discussions on this Bill that they mean to have a strong and effective NRA. I have accepted that and I believe it, but, if the amendment goes through, it will mean that the NRA will be emasculated for the first 12 months of its existence. We shall have to see the pollution of our rivers by sewage works continuing without being able to do anything at all about it. If there is, for example, a major fish kill or a grave pollution incident damaging one of our rivers very seriously indeed, the public will see the NRA with its hands tied, unable to do anything. I cannot imagine a worse way of starting it off, because we want everyone to have full confidence in the NRA and its effectiveness. To see it start off by being unable to move for a whole year on questions like this would totally undermine public confidence.
I therefore greatly hope that the Government will have second thoughts over this amendment.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I do not want to keep the House at this late hour, but I believe that certain statements made from the Opposition Benches have really rather exaggerated the situation. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, began by implying that nothing is happening now, yet we have heard endlessly during the proceedings on the Bill that improvements are even now taking place. Further investment is taking place and various examples,

717
which I shall not list because everybody is aware of them, were given. Secondly, there is being put in place a stricter, better and more complete system of control in which the poacher and the gamekeeper are not one and the same person. It will be introduced on a specific date.
It is true that one could argue against this amendment that a year is a long time, except that there is provision for sampling. However, with a new system and new companies taking over and with a different and tighter system of control, it is not unreasonable to suggest that there should be a period of adjustment. It is assumed that any plc which takes over from a water authority will be completely crazy and will allow pollution to continue knowing perfectly well that sampling will be taking place, after which it will be inviting prosecution if it does not improve the environment or reduce pollution.
Let us assume that the figure of 20 per cent. given by the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is accurate. If they are not completely crazy, those companies will be making every endeavour to ensure that, at the end of the period, they are not causing as much pollution. Otherwise they will be inviting prosecution. It seems not unreasonable to argue that it is fair and just that a period of adjustment should be allowed because the system of control and the separation of the industry will come into being. For those reasons I believe that it is right and proper to include the amendments which my noble friend has moved.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Trafford has said, because, with respect, I believe that some of your Lordships followed speaking notes prepared before I had spoken. A great deal of what I said covered and met the concerns subsequently raised by your Lordships.
The situation is that our sewerage works have not been given the full investment that they should have received. During the late 1970s funds were drastically cut by the Labour Party—by 50 per cent. in real terms. That was a terrific boost for pollution. At the same time charges to the consumer rose—earlier this afternoon I quoted a figure of 43 per cent. in one year.
Since then there has been a dramatic improvement. We now have a situation where about 20 per cent. of our sewerage works are not meeting at some stages the consents under the Control of Pollution Act. That means that 80 per cent. are doing so. When one compares that record with what is happening in Europe one may be surprised to learn how far Britain is in advance of its EC partners in this matter. Some of them are still busy trying for the first time to install sewerage works for their major cities.
There has been a tremendous improvement and it is continuing. My honourable friend the Minister for Water has said that, with the £1 billion programme for sewerage works, they will all have been brought up to standard by March 1992. That will be good for the environment and it is something we all wish to see.
We are now in a transitional period. It is quite right that during that time when money is being
718
spent on sewerage works with new consents they should not be the subject of prosecution for old consents granted to authorities whose legal basis was not remotely like that of the proposed NRA.
Let me just take one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He mentioned the upper tier limit. There has been no government decision on the upper tier limit. That will be set to ensure that there is no possibility of raw sewage being discharged. Of course Her Majesy's Inspectorate of Pollution inspectors will have to be satisfied that the upper tier limit is appropriate.
Let me remind your Lordships that the upper tier limit is an entirely new item which was brought in to improve the environment. It does not exist at present and I know that the noble Lord. Lord Moran, who studies these matters carefully, will realise that when one is working on a 95 per centile basis, in the other 5 per cent. there can be a rapid discharge of very high polluting substances—and not heavy metals because they are dealt with under separate legislation—which cause enormous damage. That is not being tackled at present but it will be tackled as a result of improvements which we have made to the Bill and will apply to the 20 per cent. of sewerage works currently being refurbished. One single breach of that will allow the full power and authority of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, and the NRA to come down on that authority.
Therefore, there is no question of any period of legal immunity. Up until vesting date prosecutions can be based on the present series of samples. From vesting date, any discharge in breach of the consent will contribute to the potential legal liability of the undertakers. What is important is that from vesting date the gamekeeper/poacher conflict will end and I know that that will be welcomed by all of your Lordships. The new NRA will be in place as a powerful body properly financed and acting in the interests of the environment, which we all care for so much. It will not be a shackled body but will be trying to improve the environment. Moreover, at the first sign that the sewerage works are not coming up to standard, for the first time there will be an independent body to take on the water authority plcs.
It is true that vesting day must bring a new regime but in that new regime any sample which fails on day one can contribute to a successful prosecution in just the same way as a sample taken on the last day of the old regime. There is no legal immunity at any period whatever.
11.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that reply was very carefully phrased and has not started to dent the arguments against this new government amendment. The fact is that sampling is taking place now. Sampling is being carried on by ':he water and sewerage authorities and that sampling will be of no effect unless prosecutions can be mounted before the day of flotation.
Indeed, as regards the water authorities, if this government amendment is agreed to without further amendment, they may as well stop sampling now

719
because between now and flotation there is no possibility of effective enforcement of the sampling of river water quality.
The sampling, control and improvement of river water quality is or should be a continuous process. It is not affected dramatically by vesting day on day one or on day 365 or on day 366. The investment programmes which the Minister has talked about—and we all applaud the investment programmes just as we applaud the creation of the NRA, as we have throughout the passage of this Bill—are not suddenly introduced on the day that the water and sewerage industry is privatised. They are a matter of gradual progress towards acceptable standards.
The government amendment halts the control of progress towards acceptable standards. It says that all of the sampling being carried on now and which will be carried on until the day of transfer is of no avail and they will have to start again and build up a new set of evidence on a scarcely different basis—and the Government have secured that the basis is not very different—after that time. Not until 12 months have passed will evidence have accumulated sufficiently to allow the start of prosecution or enforcement procedures.
As I said, the argument has not been dented. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, called it a year of grace. It is a year of grace for the shareholders and investors but not for the rivers and those who use our rivers. In effect, it is a year of disgrace. I invite the House to support the amendment.
11.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 146), as an amendment to Amendment No. 145, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 58.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Alport, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blease, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blyth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monson, L.

Carter, L.

Moran, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Craigavon, V

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Falkland, V.

Raglan, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Gibson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hirshfield, L.

White, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kenilworth, L.

720

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hesketh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Balfour, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Joseph, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L.

Knutsford, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Middleton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Radnor, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Somerset, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trafford, L.

Haig, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment to the amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Amendment No. 145 agreed to.
11.57 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 384, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where an application for a licence under the 1963 Act—

(a) has been made before the transfer date to the Secretary of State by a water authority in pursuance of any regulations under section 52 of that Act (modification of Act in the case of water authority abstractions etc.); and

(b) that application is pending on that date and is an application the rights and liabilities in respect of which are allocated by a scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act to the water authority's successor company,

the Secretary of State shall refer that application to the Authority to be determined on or after that date as if it were an application made to the Authority under that Act and may direct, in relation to such an application, that specified requirements of that Act with respect to procedure and publicity are not to apply, or are to be deemed to have been complied with if the requirements set out in the direction are complied with.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 151:
Page 399, column 3, after ("from") insert ("by a").
Page 399, column 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.
Page 403, line 36, column 3, leave out ("in paragraph (d) the words "charging scheme or" and").
Page 403, line 41, column 3, leave out ("in subsection (6) the words "charging scheme or"").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness

721
the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Water Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
11.57 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—[The Earl of Caithness.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is the occasion when we put aside the differences that have divided us over the weeks and months and pay tribute to those who have helped us and to those who have taken part in debate. We also attempt a summary of the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House.
The first part of this task I undertake with pleasure and a sense of honour and humility. I am deeply grateful to my noble friends and to other noble Lords on this side of the House and indeed to noble Lords on all sides of the House for taking part in the critical evaluation, which we believed to be necessary, of this most complex Bill. It is invidious to mention names, but I must refer, first, to my noble friends on the Front Bench, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Gallacher. Among my noble friends on other Benches, the very fact that I can refer to my noble friends Lady Birk, Lord Carter, Lady David, Lord Howie, Lady Lockwood, Lord Mason, Lady Nicol, Lady Phillips and Lady White—I do so in alphabetical order but no doubt there are others—makes it clear how many of my noble friends and how many in the Labour Party feel strongly that this Bill deserved the full and critical attention it has received.
We could not have done the work without the help which we received from a very small and devoted circle of admirers. I do not know whether it is in order for me to mention names, but I should especially like to name Mr. Damien Welfare and Miss Katherine Sand who have played a very distinguished and devoted part in helping us with the work which we have carried out. I should also like to mention the reseachers in the Opposition Whips' Office.
These debates do not take place in a simple straightforward way; there is always a complex mesh of agreement, antagonism of movement and change. However, one thing is always unchanging and certain, and that is the relationship between the Front Benches on this side of the House and the Front Bench on the other side.
As I have been able to do on many occasions in the past, I thank and congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the part they played in the proceedings on the Bill. They, of course, have to do what we do not have to do; they must be concerned with every amendment. Moreover, although they receive more help than we do this is still a formidable task. I congratulate them for the
722
work they have done on the Bill and thank them for their almost unfailing courtesy in dealing with our amendments. There was an occasion when they lost their tempers and tried to refuse me permission to withdraw an amendment. I do not think that they will remember that with much pride. Nevertheless, in formal terms—in non-political terms, if you like—I hope that relationships between the Front Benches have not been seriously strained throughout the passage of the Bill.
I should also like to refer to other noble Lords on the Front Benches and especially those of the Liberal and Social Democratic Party, many of whom have played an active part in the debates on the Bill. We have been particularly glad to have the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has added considerable distinction to the proceedings on what is, I think, the first occasion that he has dealt with major legislation. We have also been glad of the assistance given by many other noble Lords on those Benches and of the Social Democratic Party.
This has been a Bill in which the Cross-Benches have been particularly active and there are many noble Lords on those Benches who played an extremely valuable part, as has been evidenced by the results.
This is a Bill which is deeply offensive to the instincts of this country. It has emerged now as offensive as it has ever been. There has been no success by the Government in achieving popularity or esteem for the Bill; indeed, it has gone out in a blaze of public distrust at almost the very last stage in regard to what was almost the last amendment moved on the last night of our deliberations. That shows how deeply people feel that it is wrong to be privatising the water and sewerage system in this country.
When she took office in 1979, the Prime Minister quoted St. Francis of Assisi. I too should like to quote him. He said:
"Praise be my Lord for our sister water; who is very serviceable to us, and humble and precious and clean".
Throughout the passage of this Bill it has been our intention to seek to secure that our water is humble, precious and clean. I hope that it will survive the period of privatisation and that when we come to return water—as it must be returned—to public control we shall find that not too much damage has been done to our sister water.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his kind remarks. I also thank my noble friends Lord Ezra and Lord Addington, Sir John Bates and our own researcher, Mark. We congratulate the Minister on achieving his Bill. His patience and willingness have been greatly appreciated on all sides of the House and especially on these Benches.
Despite our fears for the future, shared by many outside the House—I shall not go into that any further, because I am already in trouble for saying what I said earlier—I feel that our time has not been wasted. The Bill has been much improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the part they have played in achieving that objective. It is

723
in no small measure due to the attentiveness and kindness of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and his two colleagues on the Front Bench opposite. I thank them.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word from these Benches. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, my noble friend Lord Caithness has had a most formidable task. He has performed it with tremendous efficiency and courtesy. He has shown—I hope that I shall not be mistaken if I say this—nearly always, very good judgment. We are grateful for such concessions as he has been able to make. He has been ably assisted by my noble friends Lord Hesketh and Lord Arran.
I should like to acknowledge the spirited and efficient way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has led for the Opposition. He too has had a formidable task, and one can but admire the way in which he has discharged it.
I am in favour of the main principles and the main purpose of the Bill. It is significant, and we should take note of the fact, that the water authorities broadly support the Bill. However, I am dismayed by the way in which the Bill is constructed and by its inordinate length—416 pages long when we started the Third Reading—its mass of detail and its overlapping provisions. Despite the repeal schedule being 18 pages long, too much of the present law is repeated, with or without amendment. Eventually there should be a consolidation, and I hope that will not be long delayed.
The legislative method of carrying out our good intentions does not give me pride and satisfaction, but having criticised that method, I firmly believe that the Bill is desirable and that it will lead to improvements which cannot be achieved under the present system. I wish the Government well in carrying out its provisions. It will be judged by results.
I should like to congratulate the Government on choosing my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as chairman designate of the NRA. He deserves our full support in meeting his responsibilities. The main problems with which the new authorities and new companies will have to deal are first and foremost river pollution. The rivers need cleaning, although they are much better than they used to be thanks to the legislation passed in the past 30 years. Pollution of the sea by sewage is still a serious matter. Drinking water, in my opinion, is mostly wholesome, but all of it should become so. Recreational facilities should be made more freely available and should be improved. Having said all that, I wish the Government well in the implementation of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at eight minutes to three on the afternoon of 17th April we set out, in your Lordships' House, to consider the second largest Bill in living memory. I said then that the main purpose of the Bill was to restructure the provision and regulation of water and sewerage services in England and Wales, and to enable the privatisation of those services. I said that the Bill would be a good one for consumers and for
724
taxpayers; it would be good for the environment; it would create a more efficient and effective water industry; and above all it was the way to achieve the water quality standards we all want.
During our consideration of the Bill, its central objectives have stood up well to the close scrutiny which your Lordships' House has given them. It has become better understood both in the House and more widely.
When I introduced the Bill, I explained that we looked forward to listening to the arguments that would emerge. Our minds were open on whether the Bill represented in every last detail the best structure for the future. In the main we have ended our consideration of this Bill in the same constructive way by today approving a further batch of improvements flowing from commitments given at earlier stages.
We originally undertook to listen carefully to positive proposals that were put forward, I hope your Lordships will agree that we have done just that. We have had over 100 hours of debate over 13 days with the opinion of the House being tested on over 40 occasions. Most importantly, we have improved the Bill in more than 50 ways involving over 360 amendments to the Bill as received in this House.
Perhaps I can touch on some of the most significant changes we have made. All of us have been keenly interested to ensure that almost half a million acres of water authority land finds its way into the private sector subject to proper environmental controls, so that its protection is assured under the private sector just as it is under the public sector. In fact, with the addition of the major amendments on the protection of disposals of water industry land, we have introduced a degree of protection far stronger than that which exists at present. That is something I know my noble friend Lord Norrie and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will welcome. At the same time we have ensured that customers will share in the proceeds—including the development value which might be gained through obtaining planning permission for alternative development—when the water industry disposes of its surplus land.
I freely pay tribute to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who persuaded us that the environmental code of practice should be applied to the NRA, and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway and others who persuaded us that Parliament should have a role in the approval of that code of practice.
The Bill has been amended to reflect the successful outcome of discussions between the Government and the European Community. The Community is now satisfied, with the Bill amended as in Clause 20 and with the commitments we made in introducing those amendments, that the Government intend to rectify any deficiencies in water supplies as quickly as possible, taking certain practicalities into account. But I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there is one group of his amendments on drinking water which would take us beyond the practicable. This House is a revising chamber and

725
we are bound to send back the Bill in a workable form. My regret is that in this one respect we shall be sending back an unworkable Bill and we may not have heard the last of the topic in this House, whatever the noble Lord may say about voting for dirty water.
We have made a great deal of progress in the area of charges. For example, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has been instrumental in persuading us, with his usual eloquence, of the need to clarify the Bill to make absolutely clear that the interests of rural customers are to be protected in this respect. We have ensured that water used for various fire-fighting purposes should be exempt from charges and we have improved the position of those who pay for their water through their landlords. We have also made sure that developers pay their fair share of the additional costs they impose on water and sewerage undertakers, and in this respect I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who cogently sustained arguments that we first started to hear in the other place.
Another major set of amendments introduced in this House following undertakings in the other place were those which will ensure much better protection of water supplies in areas which are sensitive to the overuse of nitrate fertilizers. In addition to these major points there have been a whole host of minor amendments to the Bill, all improving it in one way or another.
I am sincerely grateful to all noble Lords for the appreciation and courtesy extended to myself and my noble friends Lord Belstead, Lord Hesketh, Lady Trumpington and Lord Arran during the many hours of debate. We very much appreciated that. I thank my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who has done a fine job in supporting me, in particular on those days when I was rather more than a thousand miles away. Both he and my noble friend Lord Arran visited water authorities before and during the passage of the Bill. They are very knowledgeable about treatment plants and sewerage works. One could say that they are thoroughly immersed in their subject. Indeed I know that my noble friend Lord Hesketh greatly regrets that he was unable to bring out in the debates his knowledge of the optimum shape of sewer pipes and the gradients at which such pipes can be self-cleaning. The House, I can assure it, has missed an interesting dissertation on the theory of the inverse egg.
I should like to thank those on the Back Benches behind me who have helped me most of the time. In particular I would mention my noble friend Lord Renton who has very much kept us on the legal straight and narrow through our scrutiny of this massive Bill. We are all, on all sides of the House, grateful to my noble friends Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Elliott of Morpeth who have brought a wealth of experience to our debates and who ensured not only that we looked at the detail of the Bill but that we tested the very principles on which privatisation is to proceed. I would also like to thank my noble friends Lord Trafford, Lady Carnegy of Lour, Lady Blatch, and Lord Radnor who did a splendid job in assisting me, and, of course, criticising me when it was due. I must pay
726
tribute to my noble friend Lord Balfour for his sustained interest from the first debate. I suspect that few people have read as much of the 400 pages as he. Last but not least on this side of the House, I must mention my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who goes forward with these debates ringing in his ears as he sets out to lead the National Rivers Authority through its crucial early years.
I have had an advantage in our proceedings on this Bill for I had the honour to be the Minister responsible for water for much of the first part of last year. That was an enormous help to me in understanding the industry, yet I must confess I thought my task fairly hard work. How much more difficult it has been for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who has shouldered so much of the work of the Bill on his side. He has led his party with very great distinction through our thorough consideration of the proposals and our detailed discussions of every aspect. We may not always have agreed on the principles, but I very much appreciate the constructive way in which we have tackled the details. I join him in thanking his team of the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Gallacher, who have continually tested us.
I also welcome the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Addington, which were always and invariably brief and to the point. They were ably reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has the advantage of his French connection in appreciating the opportunities of a private sector water industry.
Finally I should like to stress my thanks for the backing I have received, in particular from my honourable friend the Minister for Water and Planning and from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who have been closely involved with the deliberations in this House, and have willingly shown flexibility to respond to your Lordships' pressure to improve this Bill in very many detailed ways.
I wish on behalf of the whole House to thank the officials who have looked after us with their normal courtesy for long hours, the Hansard writers and the clerks. I wish to pay a special tribute, as the noble Lord did, to my team who have helped my noble friends and myself.
I said on Second Reading that this was a good Bill. There is little more to say except that with the efforts of your Lordships' House it is an even better Bill. It will be even better for us as consumers and as taxpayers. It will, I am glad to say, be even better for the environment; and we shall all benefit from the better, more efficient and more effective water industry that it will bring about. I look forward keenly to the new era for the water industry in this country.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

London Docklands Railway (Beckton) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.