Lords Sitting of 2 May 1989

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

London Underground: Unofficial Strikes
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the ballots required by law took place before the recent strikes on the London Underground.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that the recent strikes on the London Underground were not organised by a union. There was therefore no statutory requirement to hold a ballot.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's Answer mean that as long as a union aids and abets but does not organise a strike it can get away with it without a ballot?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no statutory requirement to hold a ballot before organising industrial action, but if a union wishes to protect itself from legal proceedings for inducing interference with contracts it must hold a proper ballot before doing so. It would not be practical to require the organisers of unofficial action to hold a ballot before taking such action. They do not have the same relationship with those being induced to strike as a trade union which induces its members.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is there any evidence to justify the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the union aided and abetted the two recent strikes? Is it not the case that the industrial action which may take place next week has been the subject of a proper ballot? Should our efforts not now be directed to ensuring that
2
negotiations which start today are successful and that there is no industrial action next week?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly agree with the second part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, which concerns two different issues from the one which caused the unofficial action last week. I have no evidence that the union aided and abetted that unofficial action.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there not ample evidence that the union colluded with what one might call indolent passivity, and ought not that to be put to the test at some time?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that I can comment on that accusation. From the point of view of the law it was not an official strike and therefore the union was not involved.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not a fact that the union made it quite clear that it was not supporting the strike and that it would ballot if it wanted strike action? Is it not also a fact that that ballot is now taking place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that that is correct. I understand that the ballot which has taken place concerns a different issue from the one-man operated trains issue which was the cause of the unofficial action referred to.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is a proper ballot as referred to by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench? Is this a proper ballot and is it supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and the trade unions? Will we be told how many of those who were eligible to vote actually voted and what the outcome was? Otherwise it would be wrong to call it anything but a rigged ballot by certain extremists when perhaps the majority are not behind this holding to ransom of the travelling public who use London Underground.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the requirements are for a ballot. However, they are defined in law, and if the ballot does not

3
appear to come within the rules it is open to the employer to take action.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that these unsubstantiated implications of ill faith on the part of the official trade unions do nothing to ease the present difficult industrial relations position? Does the noble Lord recall that in the days before the Donovan Report nearly all strikes were unofficial, and does he agree that the highly legalistic approach of the Government towards industrial relations is not likely to work very effectively once labour power becomes stronger with the recovery in employment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that question goes rather wide of the one on the Order Paper. Indeed, it is a very general question which would more properly be the subject of a debate rather than a Question to be answered at Question Time.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, arising from the questions from the Opposition Front Bench, can my noble friend say whether there is any evidence that the relevant trade union did anything to discourage the strike action which caused untold misery on two occasions to hundreds of thousands of people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on that question. I understand that the unions opposed the unofficial actions. How strongly they did so and whether or not they were effective is another question.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not "untold misery" a bit much? Is this not simply a little case of silly legislation producing silly results?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, considerable inconvenience was caused to the travelling public in London as a result of the two unofficial one-day strikes. It may well be that there was intimidation, and I am extremely disturbed by reports that threats of intimidation were used. If such threats were made, that may be a matter for the criminal law.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House deeply resent the blatant attempt by noble Lords opposite to discredit the union without any clear evidence whatsoever?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I find myself in the middle of this situation. I believe that I have heard the views of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House what he understands the dispute to be about?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the dispute to which my noble friend referred in his Question concerns the operation of one-person operated trains and the fact that certain of the drivers are claiming 50 per cent. of guards' current wages backdated to
4
October 1985. The issue should have been settled and, as I understood it, had been settled, but obviously it has not been settled so far as concerns everyone.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, if we are to have those trains running, the good will of the trade unions concerned is a most relevant factor and that anything said without evidence to the detriment of the activities of the trade unions in that regard could be counter-productive?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I believe that a meeting is taking place this afternoon. Obviously, we shall wait to see the result of that meeting.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the increase in hooliganism and the possibility of violence on London's Underground, is this the right time to reduce the number of people in charge of the trains by almost 50 per cent.? The man who gives the signals is the only person to whom many people can refer and who can make decisions as to whether to proceed. He will no longer exist if the measure goes through.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this is not something new. One-man trains were introduced in 1984. What is in dispute is whether the drivers of those trains should receive an additional payment for operating without guards.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that if, before the negotiations started this morning, members of the unions concerned had heard some of the remarks that have been passed this afternoon behind the Minister, today's negotiations could have been imperilled? What we are concerned about is getting the negotiations settled so that we shall not have industrial action next week.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously, I cannot answer for what the unions might or might not have done if they had heard the remarks made in the House this afternoon.

Official Statistics
2.44 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the recently announced changes in the responsibilities for the issue of official statistics will increase their reliability.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place on 5th April, the decisions resulting from the recent scrutiny report of Government economic statistics:
"amount to a very substantial programme of work over the period ahead, designed to achieve a significant improvement in the quality and relevance of Government economic statistics."—[Official Report, House of Commons; 5/4/89, c. 191.]

5
Those improvements will begin to flow as the many recommendations, including the creation of an enlarged Central Statistical Office as an executive agency responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are implemented. But it will take time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while we must all be pleased that the CSO's responsibilities will be enlarged and will cover all statistics, is the noble Lord aware that there is serious concern that that body will come under the control of the Treasury? As he may be aware, the Treasury is no longer regarded as thoroughly objective in its use and treatment of statistics. Would it not have been far better if the body had been put under the control of some central office, such as the Cabinet Office, so that we could be assured of its total objectivity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the integrity of the CSO is in no way altered by the changes in ministerial responsibilities. Their sole purpose is to assist in improving the quality of statistics for macroeconomic management following the recommendations of the Cabinet Office scrutiny report.
Lord Peston: My Lords, while also welcoming what I understand to be the noble Lord's statement that more resources will go into that work, may we have some assurance that the quality of statistics will improve and—to pursue the point raised by the noble Lord—that the Treasury will not tamper with them? Perhaps I may suggest some examples to which the noble Lord may wish to refer: may we in due course look forward to the day when our unemployment statistics measure unemployment; when our income and output statistics equal the same number, as they are supposed to do, rather than differ; and when our balance of payments statistics do not seem to contain a larger error than the balance of payments figure in the first place? In other words, when may we look forward to some useful statistics?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the answer to all the questions is the same; namely, that, obviously, the whole purpose of the exercise is to improve the quality of statistics that are produced.

Community Charge Administration: Costs
2.47 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they expect to be the cost of collecting and administering in England (i) the community charge in its first year, and (ii) rates in their last year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, our estimate of the cost of collecting and administering the community charge in 1990–391 in England, based on the Price Waterhouse report, is between £356 million if all authorities work as efficiently as the most efficient in their category, and £404 million if authorities maintain their current
6
efficiency. Those estimates were at November 1987 prices. The cost of collecting rates in 1989–90 is estimated to be about £200 million.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that according to the local authority survey that was carried out, that is a gross underestimate and that the survey shows up a number of major criticisms of the Price Waterhouse study? Is he aware that the Price Waterhouse study was based on 25 out of 350 local authorities and that it assumed no evasion of payment and no increase in the numbers paying by instalments and further assumed that work would simply double? Is the Minister aware that, at present, only one form per household goes out, whereas, under the poll tax, three, four or even five separate forms may go to each household depending on how many adults are in the house? Is he aware that the study made no allowance for publicity or training and no allowance for the fact that local authorities estimate that the number of staff will increase from 13,000 to 30,000, an increase in bureaucracy of 130 per cent.?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the estimates were based on an objective study by an independent firm of consultants. It will come as no surprise to noble Lords to know that the local authorities may take a different view, but we believe that we should support the view of the objective study.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, although the Minister gave us an assurance that the study was an objective study, does he agree with the noble Lord who asked the Question that it is an inadequate study in so far as a very small sample was taken? If he bases his estimate of costs on the Scottish experience, it should be twice the figure that is estimated by Price Waterhouse. Finally, is there anything sinister in the fact that the notices for the poll tax in England will be issued after the local authority elections when local authority officials requested that that should have been done in April?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will understand that we do not share his view of what the cost of the community charge will be. However, I can put his mind at rest and say that there is absolutely nothing sinister, as he felt there might be, in the timing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has signally failed to answer any of the questions about the statistics put by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Even if we were to accept his figures—that of £200 million for the cost of rates is in fact not the official figure, the CIPFA figure being £187 million—are they not an admission that the cost of collection of the poll tax will be twice as much as the cost of collection of rates?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, certainly the original figures that I mentioned confirm that the cost of collection of the community charge will be twice as much, as the noble Lord said. With regard to the points put by his noble friend Lord Stallard to which

7
he referred, the noble Lord made a number of assertions with which I disagreed. Assertions are slightly different from quesions. That is a degree of difference which is a difference in itself.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the crucial statistic is the cost per pound of tax collected? Can he say what is the cost of collection per pound of rates and the cost of collection per pound of poll tax?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that I have answered that question already by saying that it will be twice the cost. I remind your Lordships' House that of course there will be twice the number of people paying, so it is not entirely illogical that the cost should double.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that my questions—not assumptions—were based on a local government survey which covered over half the local authorities compared with a study of 25 out of 350 authorities? Therefore my assumptions must be more firmly based than are his. Is he aware that in Birmingham, the authority has already taken on 350 extra staff—more bureaucrats, whose number the Government were pledged to reduce? The authority plans to send out 400,000 forms. Does he accept that more forms will have to be sent out per household compared with the one form that was sent out for the rates? The number will be multiplied in the case of the poll tax. Those are not assumptions; those are facts. Does he not accept them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is a fact with which I did not disagree when I said that there would be twice as many chargepayers. I also noted that it is entirely logical that there will be twice as many forms to send out. We have always accepted that the system would be more expensive. However, we happen to believe that it is fairer, and therefore it is a price worth paying.

Hospital Waiting Lists
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest figures of the length of hospital waiting lists, and what are the comparable figures for 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the latest figures show that at 30th September 1988 there were 691,000 people waiting for admission to hospital. Comparable figures for the four preceding years were 683,000, 661,000, 682,000 and 661,000, respectively.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that the appalling statistics he has listed—they are worse this year than for any of the previous years—relate to patients who are waiting for treatment as a direct result of the
8
underfunding of the National Health Service at a time when the Government claim that the economy is strong? Is he aware that every conference of health service workers, whether management, nurses or doctors, which has considered the Government's discredited proposals, recognises that nothing in those proposals will improve the waiting lists? And waiting lists are very much concerned with people.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we accept that the figures are marginally higher than the previous figures. However, as the noble Lord knows, they are considerably better than they were in 1979 when they reached a highest ever peak of 752,000.I think I should also say that accusations that the Government are under-funding the National Health Service are unfair. We have increased funding in real terms by 37 per cent. since 1979. I should also say that the number of day patients treated has also gone up dramatically since 1979.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether that number includes individuals who have been offered beds but have not taken them up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we do not include in the figures for waiting lists what are referred to as self-deferred cases; nor have we included them in the past.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one contribution which would help to resolve this extremely difficult problem, about which I am sure noble Lords from all sides of the House are very much concerned—namely, the lengthy waiting lists of people going into hospital—is to build more hospitals? Is it not possible for some of the land owned by the National Health Service and by local hospitals to be used for constructing more wards in order to try to relieve the awful burden on waiting lists?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that this Government are engaged in the biggest hospital building programme since the beginning of the National Health Service. As regards the sale of surplus land, I believe that the noble Lord has tabled a Question on this subject to be discussed in a couple of weeks' time. I shall willingly answer it then.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that waiting lists now seem to be averaging 680,000 a year? The number is far higher than the average experienced by the previous administration, which after all was 10 years ago. Will he now say what in the White Paper will help to reduce this problem of pain for such a large number of people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the average might be marginally higher than under the administration to which the noble Lord refers. However, as he well knows, and as I think my noble friend Lady Trumpington told him two or three years ago, under every single Labour government since the last war the figures have gone up and under every single Conservative government they have come down. As regards the White Paper, the noble Lord knows

9
perfectly well that the proposals will increase the ease with which money can move around from one district to another. That will certainly help those patients who are in areas or districts which admittedly have rather long waiting lists at the moment.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my Question was about patients and not about money. Does the noble Lord not accept that it was about patients getting into operating theatres?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that the White Paper contains proposals designed so that money follows patients. If money follows patients it makes it easier for them to go where there are not waiting lists.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Water Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment a Prayer to annul the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989 will be taken.

Water Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("National Rivers") and insert ("Water Protection and Environment").
The noble Earl said: It appears to fall to me to kick off on this interesting Bill, on which no doubt we shall have many and prolonged discussions in Committee. I think it is proper for me to say again, as I said during the Second Reading debate, that I am a non-executive board member of Anglian Water. I was appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment with special responsibilities for environmental issues and I am now a member of the plc working group of that board.
I welcome this Bill in principle. It is clear from its passage through another place that some changes in the Bill as printed are still needed. I welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my noble friends the Minister Lord Caithness and Lord Hesketh. I am certain that amendments that are proposed will have a fair and courteous response as always.
Clause 1 of the Bill establishes—I quote from the Explanatory Memorandum—an authority:
"to take over the responsibilities of water authorities in England and Wales in relation to water pollution, water resource management, flood defence, fisheries, recreation and navigation.
The establishment of this authority has been very widely welcomed as an important new instrument in the protection of the aquatic environment and in the management of the natural resource of water. I share the general enthusiasm that has been widely expressed for this new authority.
The amendment that has been proposed by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, concerns only the name by which this authority is to be known. The amendment carries no implications whatsoever on the powers or functions of this authority and is not intended to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, most deeply regrets that he has unavoidably been detained and wishes to express his apologies to the Committee for being unable to join me in introducing this amendment. However, I have had many discussions with the noble Lord on the appropriate name of this authority.
It is clear from the Explanatory Memorandum, and indeed from the body of the Bill, that this authority will have responsibility only in England and Wales. As was made clear by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, during Second Reading, it is not the practice in this country to apply the epithet "national" to a body that relates to only a part of the United Kingdom. In the terms in which we ordinarily speak, this will not be a national authority. I do not believe that it is appropriate that it should be so called.
Secondly, although it will inherit the tasks of the former river authorities among many other duties that it takes on from the present water authorities, it is made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum that it has a remit that is very much wider. It covers the protection of fresh water, including lakes and ground waters, estuarine and coastal waters, flood defence, fisheries, recreation and navigation. Therefore to call it merely a rivers authority is totally inappropriate and fails to indicate to anyone the duties of this authority
It is true that we have very quickly become used to calling it the National Rivers Authority. In the trade, as it were, it has been called immediately the NRA. These letters have begun to slip off the tongue. But it is such a short time since this name was coined that I foresee absolutely no difficulty whatsoever in adapting to another name equally quickly, especially if that other name is more apt and indicates more clearly to the public and to the authority's employees and its management the full range of important functions that this authority will assume if the Bill becomes law.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and I have discussed alternatives and have played around with many combinations of short names that try to encapsulate in them the essence of the functions that this new authority is intended to assume. We propose the name, the Water Protection and Environment Authority. We find no other existing public authority that has an acronym that this calls to mind. We foresee no conflict with any other existing body in

11
that sense. We feel that this name is appropriate because it indicates what the authority has to do. We do not feel that this is a trivial amendment. It has no implication whatsoever for the functions of this authority. Therefore at the opening moment of the Committee on this Bill, in order that the new usage can rapidly become familiar, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord McNair: Perhaps I may make a brief intervention in the form of a question to the noble Earl. Would it not be better if instead of Water Protection and Environment Authority we talked of the Water and Environment Protection Authority? As the amendment stands, it sounds as though this authority is in charge of the entire environment, whereas it is concerned only with that part which has to do with water.
The Earl of Cranbrook: That was indeed one of our candidates. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who may be a better educated man than I, in the end overrode me because he maintained that the words to which the noble Lord referred just now were not strictly grammatical. One of them would have to be an adjective. There was the additional consideration that the initials are WEPA. We felt that it was a less attractive acronym.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl made a suggestion along these lines in a debate in this Chamber last year when he was arguing for a more widely based environmental protection agency. As I recall, I was somewhat cool to the idea because I felt that changing names does not change very much. What is important is to change functions. Although I have come round to the view that an environmental protection agency more broadly based is a wise policy, I am nervous about this amendment because of the point in which the noble Earl himself rejoices: that it changes only the name without in any way changing the functions.
Noble Lords who have seen the Marshalled List of amendments will understand that we propose to spend a considerable time in the coming days seeking to change the functions of the National Rivers Authority. I hope that many of the amendments will be acceptable to the noble Earl, with his well-known interest in the environment. I also hope that many will be acceptable to the Government. Even if the noble Earl feels it necessary to withdraw his amendment now, if he feels that sufficient progress has been made on the functions I hope that he will return to his amendment at a later stage. I would not wish to oppose it now. I could wish that it had been accompanied by a comprehensive and searching view of the functions of the National Rivers Authority as proposed. However, if we make real progress in improving the powers and the functions of the National Rivers Authority, it would be a suitable opportunity for the noble Earl to return to his amendment at a later stage.
The Earl of Caithness: The purpose of this amendment is to change the name of what the Bill calls the National Rivers Authority in order to describe more accurately its functions. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has suggested that the NRA is neither national, because it does not cover either Scotland or Northern Ireland, nor solely a rivers authority, because its writ extends to other inland and coastal waters as well as to flood defence and other functions stretching well beyond the management of rivers.
I have to say that I have considerable sympathy with these points. Both of the shortcomings identified are perfectly correct, and the name National Rivers Authority does not describe the new body's functions with literal accuracy. However, I would pose two questions. First, is the title as it stands likely seriously to mislead anyone? I would suggest that it will not. The word "national" in its title will presumably not worry the Scots, who will simply never encounter it, and it accurately conveys the notion that it operates at national rather than local level, especially to those who regard both England and Wales as nations within a United Kingdom. Nor is the use of the word "national" at all unprecedented. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee that, contrary to what my noble friend has just said, both the National Water Council and the National Bus Company were limited to England and Wales.
Nor, I believe, will the brevity of the reference to rivers lead the public to misunderstand its wider role. After all, there are, I am afraid, many bodies where the name does not give a full picture of all its functions. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I quote as an example the department where I have the honour to serve as a Minister. It is certainly true that the Department of the Environment deals with environmental matters. But the name does not, perhaps, suggest the full range of responsibilities for housing, local government, planning and sports, as well as more obviously environmental issues. However, I suggest that the name Department of the Environment provides an instant and easily remembered reference to its major functions. Similarly, for the new authority to be called a rivers authority identifies its primary responsibilities.
But my second question is whether the title the movers of the amendment suggest would actually be an improvement. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook referred to the acronym "NRA" as "slipping off our tongues". I suggest that is actually a very relevant and accurate remark. By contrast, I suggest that the WPEA—"weepy" or "whipper"—would have to fight its way off the tongue. That is one consideration, and I do not think it is an entirely trivial one. But even as regards accuracy, I am not convinced that it would be a significant improvement. I suggest that the amendment falls foul of the accusation made against our proposed wording. The "water protection" element is acceptable, but the words "and environment" immediately conjure up a very wide environmental role, as the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has just said, whereas the NRA's environmental functions will all be strictly related to water.

13
I hope that I have demonstrated that my lack of enthusiasm for this amendment does not simply arise from the "not invented here" syndrome, but from a belief that the title already in the Bill is, on balance, the better choice.
There is another point. It is also relevant that this form has become well established. The committee under my noble friend Lord Crickhowell is already known as the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee and there is every expectation that the body for which it is preparing will be known as the National Rivers Authority. To change its name at this stage would I believe be more likely to confuse than to clarify.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: This may seem a very frivolous point, but it is real. At present the relationships between Scotland and the national government are a matter of very serious debate in Scotland. To include the word "national" in the title of the authority when it does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland is quite insensitive, and it is wrong. I beg the Minister to look at this again and to seek something more representative of the facts where possible in the title.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has said. I agree with the Minister that the suggestion in the amendment is probably not the right one. I wonder whether this body cannot continue to be called the National Rivers Authority, but simply with a sub-title "of England and Wales".
The Earl of Caithness: I toss the ball firmly back to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and to my noble friend, and I ask why they do not come forward with amendments as indeed might the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend again and the noble Lord, Lord McNair, so that we can vote on each amendment at Report stage? The one with the largest majority might take the day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I assure the Minister that the Opposition will concentrate on the substance not on the name.
The Earl of Caithness: That is what we want to do, too.
The Earl of Cranbrook: We have heard a variety of opinion round the Floor. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this is not a decisive issue on which the Committee should be divided. I hope that my noble friend will ruminate on this proposal during the course of the Bill and will perhaps change his mind towards the end so that this body can have a name which in my view will better indicate the functions of the authority. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, after ("purpose") insert ("of owning the freehold of land transferred from water authorities and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 8 which is the substantive amendment. Amendment No. 2 is necessary because the introductory sentence of the Bill refers only to the functions assigned or transferred to the National Rivers Authority, whereas we are concerend that the National Rivers Authority should have responsibility for the ownership of freehold land, which is not quite the same thing.
All regular attenders in this Chamber will have received a substantial volume of lobbying material—to put it impolitely—of argument from those throughout the country concerned with environmental matters and about the risks to the environment contained in this Water Bill. I want to repeat what I said at Second Reading: the Opposition are not opposed to the establishment of a National Rivers Authority. However, we believe that the protection which is possible under a National Rivers Authority is substantially greater than in the earlier privatisation proposals of this Government in 1986. To that extent we are grateful for the changes that have been made.
It is quite clear from the extremely well-informed pressure coming from bodies whose whole raison d'etre is the preservation of the environment, that the improvement does not go far enough. Some of these bodies are understandably cautious in their approach to the Bill. Bodies such as the National Consumer Council or the Nature Conservancy Council are funded by government. But if one reads between the lines, their evidence combined with the evidence of bodies such as the Consumers Association, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and Wales and many other bodies, it is clear that their concerns about the environmental risks of the privatisation of water go very deep and are well founded. We have literally dozens of amendments on the Marshalled List to protect particular parts of the environment. They will be debated as we proceed through the Bill.
But there is an opportunity now at the outset of the Bill to pass one amendment, or in this case two, which will go to the heart of the concerns of the environmentalists. At the heart of environmental concerns is the fear that the successor companies, the plcs which will take over from the existing water authorities, will have a different set of priorities and a different kind of pressure on their activities which will lead them to put the protection of the environment lower on their list of priorities than the water authorities do and will put at risk the environment of our country.
The way in which we can cut short a great deal of debate in this Committee is by approving these amendments which keep the ownership of the land now owned by the water authorities in the hands of a public body, the National Rivers Authority, rather than transferring them to the new water supply plcs.

15
It is on that basis that I commend these amendments to the Committee.
The holdings of the water authorities are very much more substantial than had originally been thought. We are talking here about nearly half a million acres of land. Some authorities have small holdings; the Southern Water Authority holds only 9,000 acres. The North West Water Authority, on the other hand, holds 150,000 acres of which 35,000 acres are in the Lake District. A very substantial part of the Peak District is owned by water authorities. Large chunks of central Wales, the Brecon Beacons, the Elan Valley, are owned by water authorities. Throughout the country there are enormous numbers of large and small pieces of land, many of them in natural parks, and a very high proportion in areas of exceptional scientific and environmental interest, which will, under the Bill, be transferred to the new water companies.
The Countryside Commission, a government-funded body, has produced a list of the sites of conservation and recreation value currently in the ownership of water authorities which will be transferred. I do not propose to read out that list; but the cover price of this publication is £10, and we can thereby see that we are talking about a considerable amount of land and a considerable possibility of misuse of land.
I suggest that these amendments seek to protect the amenity land owned by water authorities. The Secretary of State in another place on 4th April rejoiced in the fact that the Water Bill was achieving the privatisation of nearly 500,000 acres of land. I do not believe that that is the basis on which water privatisation is being sold to the public. The argument put forward by this Government and by the Prime Minister is that the Water Bill will privatise the water services in the hope that they and the sewerage services will be more efficient. The Bill has not been put forward as one which will privatise land, particularly land of environmental value.
The transfer of the land to the new water companies is a side issue. Nothing that we are proposing will damage the ability of the water companies to carry out their job efficiently. There is no reduction in the availability of operational land to the water companies. There is no threat to the privatisation proposals. If the amendments are passed, the water companies will be free to concentrate on the job which they are supposed to do—that is, the provision of water and sewerage services. The Government have described them as being the "core activities" of the water companies.
I argue that the amendments protect not only the amenity value of the land but also the water industry. There are subsections in the new clause which protect the long-term interests of the water companies. In other words, if they find that they have a subsequent need for operational land which had not been identified at the outset there is a procedure to make that land available to them. There is also a possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State if there is disagreement between the authority and the new water companies. They are protected by being able
16
to keep the operational land they need when they need it and not when they do not need it.
I also argue that the amendments have a significant benefit for the Director General of Water Services. As the Bill stands, he will have a package of regulatory duties which include the responsibility for the regulation of the non-operational land required by the water companies. I suggest that that is a distraction from his real purposes and from the basis on which the role of Director General of Water Services has been, or ought to be, set up. The amendments will simplify his task and concentrate his mind, and that of the water companies, on the supply of water.
I suggest to the Committee that the amendments also protect the taxpayer. On Second Reading I referred to the unfortunate case of the Royal Ordnance Factories, which were sold to British Aerospace at a price which was significantly less than the disposal value of only one part of the Royal Ordnance Factories' assets—that is, the un-needed non-operational land. It is clear that in that case the taxpayers lost out and the Government, although not apologising in terms for the error, made it clear that such an error ought not to be allowed again.
The protection provided by the amendments is a protection for the Government and the taxpayer. If they are passed we run no risk of disposing of non-operational land at a knockdown price which can then be recovered many times over by the resale of that non-operational land. Non-operational land which is not required for the water services will remain public property. It will remain subject to the protection of the National Rivers Authority with all of the functions which will be transferred to it. The authority will have the prime object of preserving recreational access and conservation.
It is curious that the Secretary of State did not appear to understand his own Bill when responding to a similar amendment—not such a good amendment—in another place. On 21st March in another place he said:
"If the hon. Gentleman"—
he meant my honourable friend Dr. Cunningham—
"wants all the land to be vested in the NRA, what is there to stop the NRA from developing it as it surely should in order to maximise its assets?".—[Official Report, House of Commons: 21/3/89; col. 973.]
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will confirm that it is not the object of the NRA to maximise its assets. Its object is to provide a regulatory and testing function, protecting the environment, and not to maximise such assets as may have been transferred to it. Even if the Secretary of State had been correct in suggesting that that was the object of the NRA, surely such an object should have been explained more clearly than it has been.
We understand that the NRA is intended to be an environmental protection agency by one name or another—let us not enter into another argument about the name. But if it is to be an effective environmental protection agency, I suggest to the Committee that it must have the responsibility for the land which is not required for operational purposes and which can be maintained for the protection of the public.
I know that a number of my noble friends and noble Lords in other parts of the Committee have received evidence from environmental bodies which they will be presenting in support of these amendments. I wish to make a final comment in support of the amendments. They are not a threat to the privatisation of water. They present a rationalisation of the procedures under which water is to be privatised. They concentrate the minds of the managers of the privatised water industry on what is supposed to be their task; that is, the provision of water services. They take away from them responsibility and concern for matters which should not be part of their concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and other noble Lords have tabled amendments which will be debated on Thursday. They will replace the plc status of privatised water companies by a statutory water company status. I urge the noble Lord to look sympathetically on my amendments because, while not being in conflict with his amendments, they will go a long way towards giving the kind of result which he seeks to achieve in his amendments. There is no conflict in them. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I think alike on these matters and, if the amendments are passed, we shall have a water industry concentrating on its business, an environmental agency concentrating on its business, and both acting for the public good. That is not what the Bill provides at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: During the Second Reading debate many of the noble Lords who participated drew attention to the public apprehensions which have been created by the Bill. One of the apprehensions was the question of what would happen to the land. The landholdings of the water authorities are substantial; they are approximately 500,000 acres. Those pieces of land have important environmental value. The bulk of the landholdings are in fact required for operational purposes. They are required to safeguard water supplies. In those circumstances and having created the National Rivers Authority—a body which will be concerned with safeguarding the environment and the protection of water supplies—it seems to me that that would be the proper body to own the freehold to that land. It should make sure that it is used for the best purposes as regards the protection and environmental impact of water supplies.
If such pieces of land were to become surplus to requirements then the amendments which we propose will allow for that. A case could be made by a water authority, which would have leased the land which it presently owns, that it should be released from its leasehold obligations and allowed to sell that land. Having made its case, I have no doubt that it could put that land on the open market.
I believe that the amendment proposed would go a long way to alleviating public fears about what may happen to the water authorities' land under the privatisation proposals. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will look seriously at this amendment, because if there is one aspect of this proposed legislation which achieved virtually
18
unanimous support it is the creation and role of the National Rivers Authority. The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen that role as regards the environment and the protection of water supplies.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Renten: It is quite clear from the figures given to us by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in moving the amendment that a very large amount of land would be covered by its scope. Indeed, it seems to me that if we give the National Rivers Authority that responsibility, it will perhaps become the largest public or private landowner in the country.
Although there are apprehensions as to what may happen to places where we should be protecting the environment under this Bill—and we shall discuss that later—I do not feel that what is proposed is necessarily the best way of protecting the environment. I can understand the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, moving this amendment because he has a predilection towards public ownership, even of land. However, the amount of land involved will, as I say, not only make the National Rivers Authority the largest landowner in the country—even larger than the defence departments, which still own quite a lot of land—but it will be in effect (and I know it is not intended in this way) a partial nationalisation of land by the back door. Therefore, not merely for doctrinaire reasons or reasons of principle but for practical reasons, I would be against the amendment.
Perhaps I may invite your Lordships' attention to the terms of subsection (1) of Amendment No. 8 which states:
"Any land owned by a water authority before the transfer date shall on that date vest in the National Rivers Authority".
An ambiguity arises at once because the word "any" in that context might be interpreted as meaning "all"; in other words, all land. I believe that we are entitled to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whether it is his intention in moving the amendment that all land owned by the water authorities at present shall at first vest in the National Rivers Authority.
If one then turns to subsection (5) of that amendment, it states:
"Any question as to whether any interest in land is required by a successor company at the time of transfer under Schedule 2 for the purposes of fulfilling its functions"—
that is the statutory water company's functions. It continues:
"shall be determined by the Director General of Water Services appointed under Section 5".
Therefore, it seems that subject to that possibility of a statutory water authority applying for ownership of some of the land and subject to the Director General of Water Services agreeing that that should happen, this land transferred to the National Rivers Authority shall, to that extent, be transferred to those who will really need it for water purposes under the Bill.
The difficulty I fear in this matter is that there will be a duplication and an overlapping of functions in relation to land. I have been trying to fathom how the National Rivers Authority, given that power to own that large amount of land, is to dispose of

19
surplus assets in due course. Also, one wonders what would happen to any land which became surplus to the requirements of the statutory water companies.
We need to bear in mind that at present the water authorities—the largest of them has its headquarters at Huntingdon, only five miles from where I live—own a great deal of urban property. Its own premises are very considerable. That is in distinction from its upland holdings which comprise by far the greater amount of property at present owned by the water authorities. Therefore, that would be affected by this amendment.
However, apart from those difficulties which I hope could be explained by the mover of the amendment, I should have thought that this scheme would not give any public satisfaction. The public are not anxious for public authorities to own more land than they really require for their statutory purposes. There has been a tendency for years on the part of public authorities in general to hoard land when they have it. We do not wish to see that continuing.
Lord Broadbridge: This is a cross-party amendment and I urge noble Lords of whatever party, or no party, to support it.
Broadly, this Bill is as much about land as it is about water. As we have heard, the nub of the matter is to afford real protection against unfortunate disposal of any of the 484,000 acres of land and water held by the 10 water boards, protection which the present Bill does not afford however loud the Minister may protest. We have a growing population. More and more people want first and second homes. Britain is inelastic, so that half a million acres will be more precious with each succeeding year in relative as well as absolute terms.
The Bill's main effort in the direction of protection is in Clause 10, by reference to a code of practice. However, before that, Clauses 8 and 9 seek to give a sort of preamble. Gritty phrases are used, such as the necessity to "have regard to" and "to take into account". However, the guidelines in the draft code of practice are no more stringent. The Bill states that the purpose of the code is to give practical guidance and to,
"promote what appear to be desirable practices".
In a particularly purple passage in Clause 10(2), it states that a contravention of a code of practice shall not give rise to any criminal or civil liability.
The draft code was published on 24th January 1989, together with a press release which, in its ultimate paragraph, stated:
"In enforcing these duties on the new water plcs the Secretary of State would take into account the extent to which they have followed the terms of statutory codes of practice giving practical guidance in relation to those duties".
If the Secretary of State is admitting in the press release summary that he will take into account the extent to which the undertakings have followed the terms of statutory codes of practice, he is admitting that he expects it to be haphazard and seems to have knocked a hole in his own bucket before he even reaches the code of practice itself.
20
However, the code of practice is wishy-washy and completely lacks the word "must". For example, of the natural environment the code of practice states:
"Relevant bodies should therefore respond positively",
and of the protection of buildings of interest, on page 23 it states:
"Relevant bodies are required… to have regard to the desirability of protecting buildings".
Last month the Countryside Commission published a report called Sites of Conservation and Recreational Value Currently in the Ownership of Water Authorities, in which it said:
"Some water authorities do not hold accurate information on the extent of their ownership of individual catchments. Others were reluctant to disclose detailed information about their holdings and one authority, Anglian Water, refused to contribute to this study".
Well, if a water authority will not now even contribute to a study of what assets are held, I do not get a good gut feel about what authorities might do with them after privatisation.
I said at Second Reading that without capitalisation and with the need to pay realistic dividends from a business growing at only about 1 per cent. per annum there will be great pressure on the new plcs to dispose of assets for cash; indeed, I gave an example of the way in which Thames Water is doing just that at this very moment by seeking to dispose of its Stoke Newington reservoirs and filter beds for a vast building development. There will be pressure too on local authorities to allow such developments—they also need the money—so I do not believe that the omnibus government fall-back position, stated by the Minister in winding up on Second Reading, that the Bill is not about legislating for land disposal and that this will be taken care of by the normal planning procedures, holds (dare I say it?) any water at all.
A recent lobby I attended—almost every national body concerned with nature and the environment was present—universally thought that a coach and horses could be driven through the Bill's provisions designed to protect environmental land and water against disposal. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors states that it,
"is satisfied that neither the Code nor the Bill as drafted could prevent this happening".
The amendment is designed to put some teeth into the Bill's toothless gums by making provisions that are mandatory; to substitute "must" for "having regard to" or "to provide as far as is reasonably practicable", set in a context without loopholes.
Our environment is a diminishing asset. It is melting away like ice in the sun. What we have is what our ancestors left us. We have a duty to protect it. In the political chaos that surrounded the outbreak of the Second World War, a Member in another place uttered an immortal phrase: "Speak for England". I urge the Committee to support this amendment and, in so doing, to do just that. Noble Lords will then earn the grateful applause of their contemporaries and successors.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: I support this Bill——
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood—as amended in due course in Committee, on Report, and so on. I support the amendment. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton, say that the public were not interested in public bodies owning more land than is necessary. I suggest that the public are not interested in the sale of the land that surrounds our reservoirs. That seems fairly clear from public opinion polls and from the views of the various organisations opposed to the Bill.
It is obvious from any analysis that water and sewerage are of themselves not the attraction of privatisation. It is the land assets that are likely to lead to a successful flotation. That was made clear at a recent meeting of the Yorkshire Water Authority which has already established itself into three separate parts in anticipation of privatisation: first, the core of the water authority; secondly, administration; and, thirdly, enterprise. The purpose of the enterprise section is to maximise profits; the authority has made no bones about that. The authority says that it is not its intention at the moment to sell off the land within the Yorkshire region; nevertheless, there are other ways in which it can maximise the profit from the land.
Yorkshire Water Authority owns about 75,000 acres, of which only 16,000 acres are operational. Even the 16,000 acres raise doubts in some people's minds as to whether the whole acreage is needed for operational purposes. The remaining acreage is either agricultural or amenity land. Apart from the district of Calderdale, the land is largely in the national parks area and surrounding areas of exceptional beauty. In the Calderdale district, incidentally, about 17,000 acres of land are in the ownership of the Yorkshire Water Authority. That constitutes 19 per cent. of the land within the borough. Obviously that 19 per cent. could cause considerable concern to the Calderdale District Council because it is largely moorland which provides a lung for the workers in the urban area of Halifax and some of the surrounding smaller districts in the conurbation. Therefore, it is an important area that needs protection. The amendment put forward by my noble friend would provide the necessary protection.
I give the Committee three illustrations of the fears that exist at present. The first relates to the Peak Park Authority Joint Planning Board which reports that negotiations on the future management of existing recreational facilities owned by the water industry are proving to be more difficult than expected. The water authority is seeking a greater contribution to costs from the board. It is seeking to alter some of the policies that have already been agreed between the board and the water authority and it is changing some of the developments which were previously agreed—developments such as access. It is now fencing open moorland and proposing the closure of concession paths. That is one area in the Peak District which is already proving
22
to be difficult because of the proposed privatisation and the new developments that might be available to the companies which will be set up.
In the Yorkshire Dales national park there is concern over the Grimworth reservoir which was initially earmarked for quiet recreational facilities such as walking and observing the wildlife of the area. Planning permission was limited to a car park with toilet facilities. Outline planning has now been granted for a major leisure centre on the shores of the reservoir which would change the whole atmosphere of the reservoir. That may be more lucrative for private profit; it would nevertheless be an intrusion into the national park.
The third area of concern is Nidderdale, just outside the Yorkshire Dales national park. The Yorkshire Ramblers' Association has applied for a new footpath. It is meeting with some resistance from the water authority. Here again, the fear is that this is because of what might be allowed if the Bill is enacted and the land privatised. There are some very real fears about what will happen to the land adjoining these reservoirs. It seems that the amendments put forward by my noble friend will not only safeguard the public and the environmental interests but at the same time they will also enable the essential development of the water industry to proceed. I therefore support the amendments.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has persuasively invited me to support him. I sympathise with his objective. I understand the very general anxieties that exist all over the country about the development of these; huge areas that run into hundreds of thousands of acres across the land. I believe that it will be too drastic for all the land owned by the regional water authorities to be taken away and moved over to the National Rivers Authority. The greater part of the land will be required by the companies of the future. I believe that the safer and more realistic approach is the one that I have in mind. I hope that I shall be able to persuade the Committee to accept it. We should have the statutory water company model instead of the plc in the Bill. As Members of the Committee have rightly said, the plc has the primary motive of making a profit. It is believed that this will give it the incentive to efficiency for the benefit of all. This is not the moment for me to develop that argument, but I do not believe that is so.
If there is a statutory water company it pays fixed dividends and any surplus made goes to reduce the charges to the consumer the following year. So there is no incentive to develop this land. Occasionally, it will wish to develop a site where there have been some works and it is intended to build new ones to help meet the cost. In a general way it does not have the incentive to do this. Therefore we have the major safeguard in the statutory water company that it will not be moved to make the kind of profit which the plc will see it as its duty to do. For that reason I prefer my solution to the problem because I believe that this land should be left to the companies of the future. Most of it will be wanted. If it was a statutory water company the safeguards would be massive. It will not have the incentive and the planning controls

23
and the other factors will take care of the problem. While I sympathise with the noble Lord, I am sorry that I am unable to accept his persuasive invitation to support him.
Lord Walston: The objectives of the noble Lords, Lord Nugent and Lord McIntosh, are not very far apart. But it is not for us today to discuss the relative merits of the methods they propose in order to achieve those objectives. We have before us a very simple means of achieving that which a large number of us wish. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will not be surprised to learn that I am not—as he apparently is—a doctrinaire privatiser. I have no objection to private or to nationally owned enterprises. In certain cases one is better than the other. Many years ago, in company with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, I produced a pamphlet in which I argued against the nationalisation of agricultural land. I still adhere very largely to those arguments.
I remind Members of the Committee who do not know that one of the largest landowners in this country is the Crown Estates. That is scarcely a nationalised concern, but it is certainly not a private one. It is run through what some would call a bureaucracy. It is governed by certain well-defined rules. I believe that it is a very efficiently run organisation. I cite that as an example to show that one can have, in some form of public ownership, a large amount of land which can be just as efficiently run as any privately owned land and which can at the same time be devoted in large measure to the welfare of the community as a whole rather than to the enrichment of private individuals or certain shareholders.
If this amendment is adopted, as I hope it will be, two results will follow. One is that the price paid for the privatised water companies will be significantly lower because a great deal of the potential assets would have been removed. If the objective of privatising water was to raise money for the Exchequer so that it can be used for one reason or another, that would be a strong argument against this amendment. But that argument has never been put forward. We are not told that the country needs this money because we are short of cash so this has to be done. We know that we are very far from short of cash, because of Budget surpluses and so on.
The arguments put forward are solely those of the efficiency of the water supply, sewerage facilities, and so on. So the money argument cannot be of any significance to those who are really interested in the objectives of this Bill; namely, the provision of a more effective method of supplying water and taking away sewage. I believe that in the eyes of almost every Member of the Committee the other result will be a very beneficial one. It will safeguard the environment and remove large areas—we have heard of 450,000 or close to half a million acres of land, some of great scenic beauty—from the risk of being exploited by the new owners in order to increase their profit and the dividends of those who have backed them with their investments. It will diminish their returns but it will ensure that the land is not subjected to the desire of its new owners to
24
make profit by development. It will be maintained for the benefit of the whole community for access to the wide open spaces, places of beauty, the habitats of threatened species and species that are not threatened and give a great deal of pleasure to the population of these islands.
I hope that many Members of the Committee have an open mind on this issue. I strongly urge them to weigh up these two benefits and decide which they want to see take place. Do Members of the Committee wish to see the Treasury enriched by a few more millions or possibly billions of pounds and risk the large part of the 450,000 acres being developed in a way which is profitable, but which is not acceptable to most of the people of this country who are concerned about the environment; or do they wish to ensure that the land is protected, as far as one can ensure, in perpetuity for the welfare of all the people who live here?
4 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: I also wish to be known as someone who is very interested in the environment and who cares passionately about it. I also want my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, when I am old and doddery—or just older and more doddery than I am at the moment—to enjoy a proper and sensitive environment. I also support the notion of the privatisation of water. I believe that there is great merit in the idea of my noble friend Lord Nugent, which we shall discuss later, as regards statutory water companies. However, there is no merit in a private water company, a public water authority or a statutory water company sitting on assets and not doing anything with them. It is the duty of any form of water ownership vehicle to maximise the use of its assets. It follows that such maximisation must be heavily policed, and heavily policed for the reasons which I gave at the beginning of my remarks.
The National Rivers Authority must be given more powers and more teeth than it has at the moment. I hope that we shall do that later in Committee. It is illogical that a body whose job it is to control and police the behaviour of the water authority, water plc or water statutory company, whatever its final shape may be, should be a land holder. The National Rivers Authority should be a heavy footed plod. It should go around kicking Roy Watts or his successors to ensure that the water we all need is produced in an environmentally sensitive and clean way. However, we should not let that plod become a landowner. That would be counterproductive.
Lord Ross of Newport: The amendment may not be the ideal solution, but if the Committee passes it, as I trust it will, the Government will certainly have to think again. It is a sad fact that rather late in the day we are having to claw at whatever is available. Therefore the suggestion that the land should be placed in the National Rivers Authority is a late and perhaps a desperate solution. However, if it does not happen in this way and if the water companies are not acceptable to the Government, a great deal of

25
this land, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does not seem to appreciate, will be at risk in terms of development. Few Members of the Committee would want to see that happen.
My political career, such as it is, started because of a scandal over an area of the constituency which I used to represent. The land should have been protected. The local authority received undertakings from two councillors of the authority, one of whom used to be a Member of another place, that the area would be protected from speculation. What happened? An application came in to build 260 houses around that harbour. It very nearly went through but was turned down in the end by one vote. To his credit the Secretary of State also turned it down, but there was an enormous fight over it. The public took that out on the sitting Member of Parliament when the next general election came. That is how I came to another place. It is a lesson the Government should take on board.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, really wants to see Rutland Water or the Elan Valley put at risk. Much of the land should be returned to the local authorities because it was taken from them in the first place. Admittedly, water authorities have developed some of the land since. Sheffield city council very sensibly, so we are told, kept most of that development out and the central estate at the time supported it. I wish that many other local authorities had done the same thing. I used to be taken up the Elan Valley by my grandmother. She was proud of what Birmingham had done. We do not want to see that put at risk. I have seen the problems caused by speculation. I happen to know that a great many mobile home park developers are looking keenly at the water authority land. One of them wanted to retain me to see what I could do on his behalf but I said that I was not interested. That is what is going on.
I have been given some statistics which no doubt other noble Lords have seen. I ask the Minister when he comes to reply to confirm whether or not they are true. We are told that in 1987–88 nearly 30 per cent. of planning applications in the English national parks which had been refused by an authority were allowed on appeal. In the Lake District the figure was as high as 45 per cent. That is why the public are worried, and that is why we must do something about it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the amendment was not intended to be against the privatisation of water. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, said the same thing. Whether or not the amendment undermines privatisation, it is clear that the arguments they produced in support of the amendment will certainly undermine the successful privatisation of water. If the successor companies are suspected from the start of being antisocial, of not being prepared to do their duty to look after the purity of water and of wanting to go off at a tangent to make money out of the development and sale of land, it would not take a great deal of thought to come to the conclusion that people who may well be worthy successors will not want to enter into it. The noble Lord, Lord Walston,
26
said that no argument had been presented about the money side. It is perfectly true that the Bill seeks to ensure that we have purer water than some people say we have at the moment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that I am putting unworthy thoughts into the minds of the pure souled and high-minded people who are proposing to take over our water authorities, and that it would not have occurred to them otherwise to dispose of their land assets for a profit?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The whole burden of the noble Lord's argument was that unless the land is publicly owned, or in large measure publicly owned, by the National Rivers Authority, the successor companies would do unworthy things. Other noble Lords made the same suggestion. I understand their feelings on the matter. I have much more confidence in the powers and the skills of the planning authorities to provide protection than I have in the amendment doing it.
The successful privatisation of the industry could be undermined if the atmosphere is soured. We would not then get the money for it that otherwise we might get. It is not the main purpose of privatisation to get money. The noble Lord is quite right on that.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is so eager to win the next election that he is willing to decry his own arguments as to the un worthiness of private enterprise to take over some of these facilities. We must not ignore the money that we are likely to get. The official Opposition are the last people in the world to do that. On other privatisation measures the whole burden of their criticism has been that assets have been sold off at too low a price When they want to be critical for party political reasons they are the first to talk about the money received. This amendment would interfere with the price. Amendment No. 8 states:
"Any land owned by a water authority before the transfer date shall on that date vest in the National Rivers Authority".
If we are to ask someone else to take on the full control of providing us with pure water and take away from that body the facilities which the previous owners and controllers had without very good reason, then the very fact that the present authorities have needed the land—because it has been in their possession—is at any rate an argument to show that it really was needed. Therefore if you say to the body which will take over the eventual responsibility of providing pure water that you will take away part of the facilities which the previous operator had that is bound to undermine the general approach of the possible successor companies.
We are all at one on all sides of the Committee in wanting to protect the environment; there is no argument about that fact. We feel it is right that the facilities which the general public now have should not be wilfully taken away from them. That is why over the years—and for a long time some of us have

27
had many long battles with the authorities—we have set up a planning authority with planning powers the job of which is to do just that. Whether it is the successor companies which own the land, or whoever owns it, I am happy to leave the preservation of the environment to the authorities. They will approach the matter in a right and impartial way; that is, in no way interfering, or undermining the ability of the successor companies to go on doing the job, by taking away part of the assets which were previously there. I think that what is proposed would risk doing just that.
Finally, I suggest, at this early stage of the Bill's progress, that if we approach the matter on the basis that no successor companies can have the morality which is necessary to undertake the task, that is likely to interfere with the successful privatisation of this general asset. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who we all respect so much and who as we know has much knowledge of, and influence in, the water industry generally. We must not approach the matter, whether by means of the amendment now before us or the amendment which my noble friend has in mind to produce later in the Bill's proceedings, on the basis that all of the moral and all of the decency is only on the side of a nationally-owned property.
If I heard him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, went so far as to suggest that there could be a collaboration between local authorities which wanted land developed for their local authority profit and the successor companies which will eventually be running the industry. That is why the Bill provides for the eventual power of the Secretary of State to prevent any body being able to do just that. Indeed, the noble Lord who used to represent the Isle of Wight, and who has just given us the benefit of his personal experience, gave an example where in point of fact the power of the Secretary of State prevented the very thing happening which he said he did not want to happen in this matter. Therefore that is living proof: the fact that the noble Lord did just that in the Isle of Wight. Indeed, he now sits here as a result of the reputation he earned by carrying out that great task. The planning authority, plus the powers of the Secretary of State, will provide all the prevention that we need to ensure that the environment is not damaged. It must be done in a way which will not devalue the amount of money which we shall eventually receive, and which will not undermine the successful prosecution of the privatisation of this industry.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may intervene here for a moment. I must say that the situation was not like that; indeed, it was a whole history of events. In fact, a great battle had to be fought by vast numbers of people in order to achieve that effect at the end of the day. The whole process took nearly a year.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am not suggesting that there will not be many battles of that nature. However, I am saying that the provisions to prevent damage to the environment are already in the Bill.
28
It must be said that whatever happens—great battles or little battles—the experience of the noble Lord proves that such power is there.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness White: The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, are touching in their innocence, but hardly convincing. However, I shall not say that about the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. If we were absolutely convinced about the amendments put forward by the noble Lord and his supporters, which we shall reach later this week, we should at least be much less worried. I say that because it is true that the pattern which he proposes carries with it an element of social responsibility which is not to be found in the pattern as set out in the Bill which is now before us.
Surely it is to delude oneself entirely not to recognise the fact that there will be intense pressure to maximise short-term profit taking on the land of the water companies. That fact stands out a mile. Indeed, anyone can see that. The industry which is to be privatised—the water industry—is inherently a low-growth-profile industry. No one can change that situation. Therefore those who purchase the stock and shares of the companies will recognise that and say, "The only way that we can really make money is by using our quick-term money spinners". Such money spinners will of course be the land. I do not think that I need say any more on the matter because it must be obvious to everyone.
I shall not press an argument which seems to me to be so obvious that anyone ought to be able to grasp it. I shall just deal with the two proposals for safeguarding the use of any land which may be disposed of. One safeguard is that the Secretary of State, who is a great planner, proposes to issue guidance notes. I have with me—as I think have many other Members of the Committee—the comments on those guidelines from the National Trust. It is not an unduly radical Left-wing body—and I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, as I speak. The trust's view on the proposed guidance notes, and the Bill as presently drafted, is that adequate safeguards have not been provided.
It says that,
"Those which exist are discretionary, unenforceable and would not apply once the land is no longer needed by the water companies… The powers of the proposed National Rivers Authority to police the management of water catchment land are only discretionary. The Secretary of State's enforcement role is subject to the need to give precedence to financial considerations and we believe this seriously weakens that role. The codes of practice proposed to help the new water plcs carry out their environmental duties will not be enforceable, and the Trust believes that this will gravely diminish their effectiveness and ultimate purpose".
I shall not labour the point because I think that view, which comes from an authoritative source, gives a very good summary of the efficacy, or lack of it, of the proposed code of practice.
I turn now to the other safeguard which has been suggested. It was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I refer to the planning system. It has been said that we need not worry unduly because the planning authorities will safeguard the use of

29
any land which may be disposed of by the new companies. First, in parts of the Principality of Wales (with which I am familar as Members of the Committee will be aware and where a considerable amount of land is under water authority ownership) other ways of developing land have been explored which may not be possible in the Thames area. For example, there is development through agriculture; through intensive afforestation; and through intensive recreational use where planning authorities will not necessarily be effective. However, I do not wish to detain the Committee too long on that aspect.
I am especially concerned about a matter which I am sure has been drawn to the attention of other Members of the Committee. I have with me a copy of a very well-researched statement made by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The council has been working with a number of local authorities which have been very helpful in the matter. It reads, "such development"—that is, say, the development of land which has been disposed of by the water companies—
"will often be subject to planning permission"
That does not apply, as I say, to all the agricultural, recreational and forestry use. There will be other situations in which developments will be subject to planning permission. Then,
"the planning system will itself be distorted by the transfer of water authorities into the private sector".
I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that matter when he replies, because at present water authorities are statutory consultees; in other words, if there is a planning application which may affect their interests, they have the right to be consulted. Will the water authorities planning consultative role be transferred to the new water companies? If not, is it to go to the NRA or is it merely to fall into disuse.
The Earl of Onslow: I have tabled an amendment to ensure that the consultation which applies to the water authorities goes not to their successor plc but to the NRA. It is a valid point. It is on the Marshalled List, but it is so far ahead that the noble Baroness may not have seen it.
Baroness White: I am delighted to know that. I hope that the noble Earl will be successful. We have no guarantee that he will be. While those companies are in the private sector they may reasonably be relied upon to offer impartial advice. That will be much more difficult for them when they are in the private sector and when their developments, or other developments, might be at stake, according to the advice that they give in reply to the consultation.
It is pointed out that in relation to planning applications for other developers—after all, this applies not just to the water authorities' own developments but to general developments within their catchment areas—the other developers may be their own shareholders or business associates or they could be their competitors. Of course they will be encouraged to diversify and to go into all kinds of fields. What guarantee do we have that, if the privatised plcs are brought into consultation on
30
planning matters, they will find it possible entirely to disregard their business interests? That seems doubtful, especially when some major developments may be at stake; for example, in the Thames Water area. It will not apply so much to our noble hillsides in Wales because they will not make as much money out of us, whatever they do. It will apply to sites where there is real development value and one is trying to obtain impartial advice on the effect on the water supply or sewerage system of a particular planning application. I hope that the Minister will deal thoroughly with that point, because it will not be a practical safeguard to enforce under the proposals contained in the Bill
The Earl of Caithness: It may be helpful for subsequent speakers if I said a word now. I do not want to shorten the debate in any way but it might be helpful if at this stage I set out our position.
The Bill provides in Schedule 2 for the division of all the property, rights and liabilities of the water authorities between the successor bodies on the basis of their functions. Land required by the NRA for the discharge of its functions will be transferred to the authority. The residue will pass freehold to the successor companies.
The effect of the amendment would be to disturb a sensible division based on the most relevant and practicable criterion—the function that the land serves. In its place it would require that the freehold of all land be vested in the NRA, with such land as is required for the exercise of the companies' functions leased to those bodies but subject to such restrictions and covenants as may be necessary to ensure that any use or development of the land does not harm the environment or amenity.
I shall deal with the detailed arguments put forward for the amendment in a moment, but let me first draw attention to two fundamental, and, if I may say so, extraordinary features of the amendment. The first is this: we are to trust the companies, subject to the full and proper regulation which we shall impose, to provide drinking water and to dispose of sewage—functions of great importance; but we are not, it seems, to trust them with an acre of land. How can that be reasonable?—for just as the provision of water and sewerage services will be regulated, so too will ownership and management of land. It is, and will continue to be, regulated by the planning system. In special cases it is regulated also by national park and AONB designations and other controls, commensurate with its special needs and character. That is the fundamental reason why the amendment is inappropriate and should be rejected.
The second is the potential consequences for the NRA. The freehold of all the land, we are told, should vest in that body. Let us consider the effect of this. The body, which we are are told the Opposition support and are concerned only to make effective; the body which has the important task of controlling pollution, managing the water cycle and enhancing the environment of all rivers and estuaries—that body, if the amendment were carried, could find itself continously distracted from those central tasks by issues of land ownership and land management.

31
I suggest that that would not be helpful, and nor is it necessary. What justification is there for the amendment? The fact is that the proposals in the Bill in respect of land are reasonable and sensible and fully protect the public interest.
So far as the amendment is intended to protect land while it is in the ownership of the successor bodies, it is quite unnecessary. We have provided that, so long as land is in the ownership of the successor bodies and used for their functions, it will be protected by the conservation, landscape and access duties which attach to them in performance of their functions. Those duties are substantial. They are enforceable by the Secretary of State and they are backed up by a code of practice whose content has been widely welcomed. We have in addition tabled an amendment to ensure that the present close co-operation between the water authorities and national park authorities continues after privatisation.
Baroness White: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Does he recognise that the national parks are much concerned about the fact that it is consultation only that is guaranteed?
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Baroness is keen to get to her feet. We are always keen to listen to her, but if she would listen to me until I finished that might speed matters up, because I shall deal with the point she has yet again reminded us of.
The water authorities have a good record in conservation and amenity. These provisions will ensure that that continues.
In supporting the amendment, a number of Members of the Committee have placed particular stress on the scale of the land assets in question. I do not deny that at approaching half a million acres they are very substantial. We recognise also that much of that land is of very great environmental significance, most of it in national parks or AONBs. We continue to have the closest regard for that. But the size and quality of the landholdings are not in themselves justification for this amendment. Most of the land in the national parks is, after all in private ownership, and there is no evidence that this leads to undesirable development or inhibits public enjoyment. On the contrary, most existing owners may be different from commercial plcs, but such companies are nevertheless open to public scrutiny of their actions and policies.
Nor are we persuaded by the argument that the water gathering grounds in the highlands and uplands, which constitute the bulk of the holdings, should more naturally pass to the NRA than the companies. I recognise that those lands are used for water resource protection, and water resource protection is a function of the NRA as well as of the companies; but the fact is that those areas are closely related to the reservoirs which they feed and which for water supply reasons are to pass to the undertakers.
32
It is, I recognise, concern as to the position on subsequent disposal of any of the land which motivates this proposal; but if the land is sold by the plcs, changes of use will still be subject to the planning system, and that is the right mechanism to control what happens to land formerly in operational use by a water and sewerage utility. In many cases those controls will be supplemented, as now, by the special protection of national park and AONB designation.
In any case, much of the land is likely to be needed for operational purposes indefinitely. From time to time of course as in the past, some land may become surplus to the operational requirements of the core water and sewerage business, as a result of new investment, scope for rationalisation or other factors. Of course that will happen. But it is surely right that in these cases the company should be able to dispose of that land for better and more productive use.
There are safeguards provided for in the appointment to ensure that appointed water and sewerage undertakers have sufficient rights over land which is needed for the proper carrying on of their business. So long as they do, there can be no public interest in their sitting on land when it becomes surplus to operational needs which others could put to better use.
There has been some vague speculation in the press and elsewhere about the supposedly enormous development potential of water authority land. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have appointed valuation advisers, and jointly with each of the water authorities they have appointed independent valuers to review the authorities' property holdings. Their work will help ensure that any information on land development prospects that is material to investors' decisions on whether to buy shares will be contained in the prospectuses of the companies.
We cannot freeze the pattern of land use; nor should we try. It makes no sense to give the companies important responsibilities and deny them the freehold land assets that go with them. If we want to make the NRA an effective regulatory body it will not help to require it to assume responsibility for vast acres of land not directly related to its own functions. Most important, nor can I accept the need to vest all water industry land in a public body to ensure proper planning, evironmental and conservation controls. Those controls are already there. They have been effective in the past and they will be so in the future.
We on this side of the Committee have a different philosophy from that of the party of noble Lords opposite. We are concerned with proper regulation and control so that the private sector can thrive. I am sure that all Members of the Committee agree that we have a wealth of beauty in our countryside, most of it man-made or fashioned by those in the private sector. In addition to approximately 80 per cent. of the national parks being privately owned, it is worth remembering that just 27 per cent. of our national nature reserves are owned by the NCC. Similarly, the considerable majority of SSSIs are privately owned.

33
What is important is that we maintain and exercise the appropriate controls effectively. As my noble friend Lord Renton has reminded us, the Labour Party believes, in contrast, that ownership is more important than regulation and that the only way to proceed is by nationalising what it can—in this case the land. How convenient for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to start with this amendment, which is not the end of the story but the beginning of a systematic attack on all private ownership.
I have sought to deal with the main issues raised by this broad—indeed, sweeping—amendment. I have set out the considerations which make it in some respects unnecessary and in other respects undesirable. However, let me return to the question of the land, because it is worth remembering that we are talking of two separate types of land. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, in his place after he spoke to the amendment, but both he and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, do not separate in their minds the hill land from land adjacent to developed land. If the latter land becomes, for one reason or another, surplus to operational requirements, what is to become of it under their proposals? Is it to remain as it is for ever more?
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows—but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, does—the intense demand and pressure for housing land, particularly in the South-East. Five hundred and seventy-five thousand homes will be needed by the end of the century, a mere 11 years away. Are the parties opposite, through this amendment, to deny the opportunity—subject to all the usual planning approvals—to meet some of this need? There can be no doubt that if such land is not to be developed, the new-look Labour Party is forcing pressure for development on agricultural land.
However, in closing, let me respond to one particular argument to which we have listened with sympathy. We believe that we can separate the types of land in question. As I have said, we recognise that the water industry owns some land, principally in highland and upland areas, of quite outstanding beauty and environmental importance. I know that there are concerns in the country which many of your Lordships have expressed today that those particular areas should never be disposed of by the companies in circumstances which could jeopardise their conservation, access and amenity value. The Government have listened and are listening to the Committee on this point. It remains the Government's view that our planning and countryside legislation can deal with the great majority of risks. But we hear the argument that other risks may remain and that they are risks we should not run.
The Government are willing to act on that point. A number of proposals have been made for amendments to Clause 8 and elsewhere in the Bill. In the light of discussion of these alternatives, the Government propose to come forward with amendments at Report stage to secure that those countryside areas of special conservation and amenity value cannot be subsequently disposed of without a suitable measure of protection.
34
We shall be debating this in more detail later in our proceedings and we shall listen to what your Lordships have to say. For that reason I cannot specify today which of the alternative options we should adopt. However, I can assure the Committee—let me repeat that; I can assure the Committee—that we shall come forward with a special measure of protection for those special areas. Our support for a special and particular measure of this kind cannot however extend to support for the sweeping terms of the amendment.
Baroness White: Before the Minister sits down I fully accept what he says about the further amendments. I have looked at Amendment No. 130 which uses the term "consult", but there may be other amendments on their way. Naturally we shall study them with great interest. However, I do not think that the Minister has dealt with the point about statutory consultation. What happens with the plcs? Will they have the same rights to consultation as the existing water authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand it, at the moment, yes. But of course that is one of the amendments which we shall discuss. I look forward to debating it and hearing the views of my noble friend Lord Onslow and doubtless those of the noble Baroness too.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I welcome the Minister's statement, particularly the assurance which he gave at the conclusion of his speech. I felt that prior to his remarks we were getting off to a Second Reading debate on the quality of the Bill as such. That was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who felt that the amendment before the Committee was designed to undermine the principle of the Bill. Some of us do not like the Bill, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. We are talking about land that is surplus to the requirements of the authorities which are carrying out——
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It is land that is surplus to the requirements of the bodies. That is what we have been talking about. It is surplus to the operational requirements.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will clarify the situation. As I read the amendment, it concerns all land, whether it is surplus to requirement or not.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister is quite right. The amendment refers to the freehold of all land. That land which is required at any lime for the operational requirements of the water supply plcs will be leased to the water supply plcs. Therefore they will be at no risk of lack of access to the land they need for their operations.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: That is the point—it is surplus to the operational requirements of the plcs. Reference has been made to the fact—the noble

35
Lord, Lord Renton, was rather apprehensive about this—that 500,000 acres of land might fall into public hands. Perhaps I may say that I was responsible at one stage for almost 3 million acres operated by the Forestry Commission, in public hands. The commission exercised its authority with due regard for leisure, recreation and the environment. Consequently I should not be particularly apprehensive about a body having control of such a large area.
I only wished to make one point—that we have had recent experience of a privatisation exercise. The exercise which occurs to me is the privatisation of the Royal Ordnance factories without due regard to the importance of land holding in that privatisation. The two sites were transferred to BAe for a net value of £3.5million, which was the basis of the chartered suveyor's estimate. That land is now estimated to have a potential value of £450 million. It is that kind of experience that makes us support the amendment before the Committee. I hope that that will be kept in mind.
We are not discussing the basis of privatisation of the water supply. We are discussing whether sensitive areas and important areas—I welcome the assurance of the Minister in this regard—should be in public hands or transferred to plcs, who may exercise their commercial judgment with the kind of development consequences that have taken place elsewhere.
Lord Brightman: I rise not on a point of principle but on a point of detail. I shall be brief. I am puzzled by the purpose of subsection (4) of Amendment No. 8. This provides:
"The Authority shall, in respect of any lease or interest in land transferred to it, attach such restrictions as shall prevent the sale or transfer of any such interest to a third party except with the consent of the Authority."
The hypothesis therefore is that a lease or other interest in land belongs to the authority because it has been transferred to it.
The subsection apparently seeks to prevent the transfer of any such interest by the authority to a third party without the consent of the authority —that is, without its own consent. What is the point of providing that the authority shall attach restrictions to land that it owns to prevent the authority selling land without its own consent? I wonder whether what is meant is:
"The authority shall, in respect of any lease or interest in land transferred by it, attach such restrictions as shall prevent the resale or retransfer of any such interest to a third party except with the consent of the Authority."
I raise this point for guidance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on these amendments. May I first deal with one or two points about the wording of the amendments before going to the more fundamental issues with which the Committee is faced. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who referred to the amendments as partial nationalisation of the land by the back door. This is not nationalisation of any land. The
36
land is at the moment in public ownership. It is in the ownership of the water authorites which are public bodies. Indeed strong arguments are being pursued in the courts at the moment that it is not theirs to dispose of, or not the Government's to dispose of on their behalf. In fact the land was collected together and paid for by the ratepayers of many local authorities and transferred to the water authorities in 1973 on the firm assurance that there would be no disposal without the local authorities' permission. This is not nationalisation; it is retaining a public ownership land that is already publicly owned.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord makes a fair point. One should bear in mind that at present, as he says, the land is owned by the water authorities. However, for the first time, we are to have a national authority, at any rate for England and Wales, which is to become a very big owner of what will be, and the noble Lord intends to be, nationally owned land.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the issue of whether it is national or involves 10 different water companies is fundamental. The fundamental issue is: what is the remit of the National Rivers Authority; what are the remits of the water authorities now; how do they compare with the purpose and the objectives of the plcs to be established under the Bill?
The noble Lord questioned whether we meant "any" or "all". "Any" means "all", as I confirmed to the Minister later in the debate. As I understand it, and I hesitate before saying anything on the wording of legislation to the noble Lord, "any" is frequently used in legislation to mean the same as "all".
A number of noble Lords asked whether the amendments were sufficiently flexible to ensure that land required for operational purposes by the water supply plcs would always by available to them; whether land that they needed would become available to them; and whether land surplus to their requirements would no longer be available to them. The amendments are certainly intended to have that effect. The leases or other interests would specify that these lands should be transferred to the water supply plcs for such time as they are necessary for operational purposes, and should cease to be transferred when they are no longer necessary.
The question of whether extra land then became necessary for environmental purposes is dealt with in subsections (5) and (6), which ensure that the provision for transfer to the water supply plcs should continue after the original vesting date. Thus, in both these respects, I would argue that the clause is sufficiently flexible. I listened with respect to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, about the word "to" rather than the word "by". I suspect that he is right. It was certainly our intention to see to it that when the National Rivers Authority granted a lease or granted an interest in land required for operational purposes such a lease or interest should not become a commercially valuable interest and that if at any

37
time it became unnecessary for operational purposes the lease or interest should go back to the National Rivers Authority. It is something that we ought to look at, although I would argue that our wording can mean that as well as the interpretation that the noble and learned Lord put on it.
However, these are relatively minor matters. The fundamental issue before the Committee is whether we have a sensible division of the land that is now owned by the water authorities as between the National Rivers Authority and the water supply company plcs, and whether, if land surplus to operational requirements is vested in the plcs, there is adequate protection for the public interest. The Minister sought in reply to suggest that there was a sensible division in the allocation of land, but of course the basis of the division proposed by the Bill is that the National Rivers Authority gets only the land that is directly required for its own very limited conservation functions, and the plcs get all the rest of the land whether it is required for operational purposes or not. I suggest to the Committee that this is not the most sensible division because the objectives of the plcs and the objectives of the NRA are necessarily in conflict. That is why they are different organisations.
The Director General of Water Services has the responsibility under Clause 7 of regulating the plcs in such a way as to see that they secure reasonable returns on their capital. That is the fundamental criterion for the existence of the plcs, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, sees clearly; it is evidenced by his amendments. All other considerations are secondary to that prime requirement. Specifically, the protections in Clause 8, to which the Minister referred, are subject to the prime objective of the plcs to make a profit. This is found in Clause 7. The enforcement powers that the Secretary of State has in Clause 20 are also secondary and subordinate to the fundamental interest of the plcs to make a profit.
The objective of the National Rivers Authority is quite different. As the Minister quite rightly said, the National Rivers Authority is the body which is concerned with conservation and with the maintenance of water quality and all the other environmental aspects of the water business. Surely the objectives of the National Rivers Authority coincide most closely with the objectives of all of us for the half million acres of land which the water authorities now own, and specifically for that land which is not required for operational purposes. It may indeed be an addition to the functions of the National Rivers Authority to hold the freehold in the land, but it is already proposed that the National Rivers Authority should have 6,500 staff and I cannot imagine that the responsibilities as freehold owner will add more than a small proportion to that total.
It is entirely consistent with all the other functions of the National Rivers Authority that it should hold the freehold interest in the land which is not required for operational purposes and which the public is concerned should be maintained for environmental purposes.
38
I was very worried by something that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, in an otherwise sympathetic speech. He said how awful it would be for a public or a private authority to sit on assets and not do anything with them. What the public want for Haweswater and the Elan Valley and the other local authority land which is not required for operational purposes is that somebody should sit on that land and not do anything with it. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, talked about and that is what I thought the noble Earl, Lord Gnslow, was talking about.
It is required for all of us that that land should be kept in its present state, or perhaps improved in certain ways, for our successors. It is our responsibility to see that that land is kept in that state. It is our responsibility to see that no body which has an objective laid down by statute which is in conflict with that should own the freehold of that land.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the noble Lord really think that wilderness land, the most beautiful part of the environment, stays beautiful by people doing absolutely nothing about it, paying nobody to attend to it and leaving it alone so that nature may rampage? Does he really think that the land is not managed: I know he lives a long way from that kind of place but I should have thought he would know that from his reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness knows more from personal experience of the management and conservation of wilderness land than I do. I readily concede that. Of course I do not say that there should not be sensible and effective management and active conservation of wilderness land and other land in water authority ownership. It is entirely consistent with the other objectives of the National Rivers Authority that it should have that responsibility. Indeed, that is what is proposed in the amendments.
The danger is quite otherwise. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said with very specific examples, the danger is that the land which ought to be conserved for all of us could be developed profitably around the edges, for a few of us. That is what happens, with many commercially oriented leisure centres being built on the edges of the national parks and the fringes of areas of outstanding natural beauty. The specific statutory objective of the water company plcs will be to maximise the return on their assets and to dispose of that land and sacrifice the environment accordingly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Does the noble Lord not admit that the examples he has just given could not arise without the approval of the planning authorities? What is the difference between the powers being vested in the planning authority, which is experienced, and the rivers board, which is not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I may not know very much about the conservation and management of wilderness land but I do know something about our planning laws. I know the inadequacy of our

39
planning laws to deal with cases where applicants for planning permission have the ability to offer sweeteners to local planning authorities. There are far too many examples of planning gain being sold to the detriment of the public interest. That is what happens where there is no ownership and where there are no sanctions. That is what will happen under these circumstances.
The Bill as it stands is simply not adequate to protect the environment. The Minister referred to protections. I listened with great interest to what he said about his forthcoming amendments and I look forward with great interest to seeing them in writing. However, those are amendments to Clause 8, and Clause 8 is constrained by Clause 7, which refers to the reasonable return on capital. Therefore they are secondary and subordinate to the main thrust of the Bill, which must be to create companies which are responsible for making profit. That is the whole object of privatisation, we are told by the Government. If that is not the case there is no point in doing it.
As the Bill stands, a water company plc which wishes to develop land which it does not require for operational purposes and which would otherwise be constrained by Clause 8 or the enforcement powers in Clause 20 has a very simple solution. All it has to do is to transfer ownership of that land to another body, even a completely subsidiary body. That removes it from the constraints of the Bill. There is legal evidence to that effect. If I am wrong I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to show me that I am wrong, but that has not been shown so far. The constraints refer only to the core aspects of the water business. All other parts of the assets which are being transferred to the new water companies are outside these constraints. That is why the assurances given by the Minister are simply not adequate for our purposes.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I thank the noble Lord very much for giving way. Is he aware that we are dealing with a high technology industry which will, given sufficient incentives, develop new processes, new ways of providing clean water, new ways of treating foul water, new means of sewage treatment and new ways of returning foul water to the environment in an acceptable fashion? That will inevitably mean adjustments in the property which is part of the core business. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment also captures that land which is available under the terms of the Bill at present to be sold and in this way provides proper incentives for development and giving what I believe the public want, which is a good water supply and first-class water treatment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with the noble Earl about what the public want. My amendment specifically provides for his concerns. It says specifically that all land required for operational purposes shall be leased to the water companies; that any land which they subsequently do not want shall come back to the National Rivers Authority; and any land which they subsequently do want shall be
40
made available to them. What greater flexibility can one have? What further assurances can there be that there is no constraint whatever on the water companies doing their proper job because of ownership of land?
In this amendment we have a sensible division between the National Rivers Authority and the water companies. We have the water companies doing their job, supplying the water, treating the sewage and doing anything which is ancillary to those tasks. We have the National Rivers Authority extending its public interest in conservation and in quality by owning the land which ought in the public interest to be maintained free from speculative development.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, started by saying that the public are not anxious for public authorities to hoard land. I have paraphrased him slightly but I think that he will accept that I have got it right. The public are extremely anxious about the provisions of this Bill. What they see in this Bill is an opportunity for those who subscribe in the new water company plcs to make money not from producing water more efficiently but from selling off assets which belong to all of us, the public. That is what the amendments are designed to prevent. I commend them to the Committee.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say to the Committee that I agree that there is a fundamental difference of philosophy. However, it is worth recording that it is with some considerable disappointment that I noted that the noble Lord discarded my offer of further discussion on this matter with a commitment to bring forward an amendment at a later stage to deal with exactly the sort of points that he now seeks to pre-empt.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I certainly did not discard any offer of discussion or further consideration. I said that I looked forward eagerly to seeing the amendments. I shall of course be glad to have discussions about them with the Minister before they are formulated. That does not in any way conflict with the rest of what I say. The noble Earl made it clear that his amendments will be to Clause 8. The fundamental point which must not be ignored is that Clause 8 is subordinate to Clause 7 and that the objective of the new water companies must be to make a profit. Otherwise, why are we spending our time here at all? This is not an environmental Bill; it is a Bill to privatise water based on the argument that the industry will be operated more efficiently in the private sector.
Baroness Blatch: Given that the noble Lord has predominantly talked about national parks, the Elan valley, the Peak District and the Lake District, and taking into account local enactments and the duties on the existing water authorities which are to be transferred to the new water plcs and strengthened and, in addition, the planning controls, is he suggesting that the national parks, the Elan valley, the Lake District and the Peak District are under threat as a result of the Bill? This case attracts some

41
sympathy, but the noble Lord is going rather over the top in this debate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness asks me a question or seeks to make a point at a rather late stage in the debate. Perhaps I may take her point as it appears to be intended and answer her question. I believe that not only all the organisations concerned with the environment but a large number of people in this country who do not have any specialist knowledge think that the environment will be gravely at risk if land that has been in public ownership through the water authorities, which have constraints laid on them by statute, is transferred to public limited companies whose primary objective is to make a profit. The more I hear of the danger to the privatisation process from any attempt to take non-operational land away from them, the more I believe that privatisation is not about running water more efficiently but about selling off our land assets. If it comes down to that, it is on those grounds that I ask the Committee to take a decision on this matter.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 161.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fitt, L.

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Galpern, L.

Amherst, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Hacking, L.

Birk, B.

Hampton, L.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hayter, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Headfort, M.

Brimelow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Henniker, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hooson, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hughes, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hylton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacques, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dainton, L.

Lawrence, L.

David, B.

Leatherland, L.

Davies, L.

Listowel, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Denington, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Longford, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falkender, B.

McNair, L.

Falkland, V.

Mais, L.

42

Mayhew, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Meston, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Monson, L.

Somers, L.

Mountevans, L.

Soper, L.

Mulley, L.

Stallard, L.

Nicol, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Northfield, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strabolgi, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Vernon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Walston, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Rochester, L.

White, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Russell, E.

Willis, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Scanion, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Seear, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Seebohm, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

Aldington, L.

Ferner, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fortescue, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Allerton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Alport, L.

Goold, L.

Annaly, L.

Greenway, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bauer, L.

Beloff, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Benson, L.

Havers, L.

Bessborough, E.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hesketh, L.

Bolton, L.

Hives, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hood, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brain, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Joseph, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Caithness, E.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Manton, L.

Craigton, L.

Margadale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Marley, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Daventry, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Derwent, L.

Middleton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Milverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elibank, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moran, L.

Elles, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Nelson, E.

43

Norfolk, D.

Shannon, E.

Norrie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Southborough, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orkney, E.

Strange, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathspey, L.

Pender, L.

Swansea, L.

Pennock, L.

Swinton, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Terrington, L.

Porritt, L.

Teviot, L.

Portman, V.

Teynham, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Radnor, E.

Thurlow, L.

Reay, L.

Todd, L.

Reigate, L.

Trafford, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Tryon, L.

Rodney, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Romney, E.

Waldegrave, E.

St. Davids, V.

Wigram, L.

St. Germans, E.

Wolfson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, after ("of) insert ("reducing pollution and otherwise").
The noble Lord said: I understand that in moving Amendment No. 3 it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we also consider Amendment No. 10. These amendments put some flesh on the principle that he who pollutes our water shall pay to eradicate the pollution.
I say at once to the Minister that the Bill clearly shows the broad agreeement that has evolved over the passage of time that the one who has caused the pollution shall be responsible for clearing it up. The amendments seek to write on the face of the Bill at an appropriate stage words which make it clear that the Government mean business. Bluntly and crudely, the Government must be seen to be in the serious business of making sure that the polluter clears up the mess. Sadly, certain individuals, companies and even public authorities have in the past got away with murder. The amendment is a clear indication that this shall not happen in the future. Amendment No. 3 relates to the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. It ensures that besides carrying out the other functions assigned to it, the authority will be in the business of reducing pollution.
The Minister and my noble friend Lord McIntosh have spent a very profitable two hours exposing the broad principle which underlies the purposes of the Bill. I shall return to this point later. There are hundreds of acres of land currently in public ownership which the Government believe can better be used if there were to be a change of ownership of that land. I shall not rehearse the arguments we have heard on that subject.
A key aspect of the Bill is the quality of the water that we drink and use. These amendments seek to ensure that when people are negligent, zealous, ignorant or in some other way getting away with continuing to run their business while polluting our waters—it might be a nationalised industry, an individual or a company—they shall bear the cost of removing that pollution from water which eventually is used to provide pure drinkng water.
The Committee will be aware that this is the territory of the gamekeeper and the poacher. There is a responsibility to make sure that the water we drink is clean, pure and useful. Pollution cannot be controlled nor can our rivers and other water resources be protected from further pollution or rescued from existing pollution if the financial resources required are not provided.
Noble Lords are often reminded of the question: what about the taxpayers' money? We do not want to waste taxpayers' money. But if the people who cause the pollution do not pay for the mess that they create, at the end of the day this or any other government will have to put the matter right. If those people who are the proper recipients of these measures escape the clauses of the Bill, it will be the taxpayer who pays.
That is the basis on which we want the. Government to accept the amendment. I hope that they will be sensible, that they will not say that there is no evidence to warrant such an amendment and that the people who pollute our rivers and streams will be dealt with. I hope that the Minister will accept the genesis of our argument. It is not for the Minister to tell the Committee that other parts of the Bill take this matter into account. The amendment seeks to have written on the face of the Bill at an early stage—not in a later clause—that one of the prime responsibilities of the rivers authority is to deal with pollution.
We shall also be considering the question of consents, the varying qualities of consents and different types of pollution later in our debates. There is some horrendous evidence of the manner in which polluters have got away literally with murder. They have killed fish and animals—and people, from the point of view of the damage that is done in a range of ways—and we have the evidence for it.
I should like to give the Committee an illustration. It is the current position. The Government do not directly carry the blame for the present state of the water, although they are responsible for ensuring that those agencies which have been charged with certain functions carry them out. There are stretches of rivers in north Derbyshire and south Yorkshire where, it is claimed, discharges of mercury, cadmium and other toxic chemicals have resulted in the river bed becoming extremely toxic for biological life. The water of the River Rother is not suitable, and may not become suitable, for use in the water system in south Yorkshire. Under the new system, who will continue to pay to bring clean water from a distance? The industry that is polluting the River Rother must be made to clean up the river, whether it is in south Yorkshire or elsewhere. We read in the papers of illustrations from all parts of the country where terrible environmental damage is done primarily to

45
wildlife—animals, plants and fish—but it also leads to the gradual decline of the landscape that people have enjoyed.
We are asking the Minister to tell the Committee not only that he believes that pollution should be avoided but that those who cause it should be hit hard. When it is possible to ascertain who has caused the pollution—and I recognise that this is not always easy—we ought not to hesitate to ensure that the polluter has to pay. The southern division of the Yorkshire Water Authority has the highest concentration of polluted rivers in the country, with 1,800 registered discharges over hundreds of miles of river. It has 17 pollution control staff. It seems unlikely that the number of staff covering these issues at the NRA will be any higher. A disturbing piece of research is that over a 10-year period more pollution was ascertained, yet there are now fewer officers in post to deal with it.
My case is this. Not only do we wish to clean up our rivers but we wish to make sure at an early stage that it is written into the Bill that the National Rivers Authority has such responsibility.
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has had good reason to move this amendment. Pollution of our rivers has caused great public indignation and anxiety. I am happy to be able to say that since the Control of Pollution Act 1974, most of which is to remain on the statute book, the position has greatly improved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I remember that when some of us were elected to another place the Thames was in an awful state. It was well known that only the most pollution-greedy fish could ever be found in it. It is now a remarkably pure river. It could no doubt be improved still further.
However, I must not wander too far from the more important aspects of this amendment: that the supply of water that we drink should be clean. This is one of the longest Bills in history, with over 380 pages. One does not wish therefore to lengthen it. At first sight, one might ask: what is the harm of these two fairly short amendments? I do not see any harm in Amendment No. 3. I believe that it could be a little misleading because it selects just one of several duties that may be given to the National Rivers Authority, subject to the decisions of the Chamber. It refers to the others by the words "and otherwise". We should normally avoid such terms in statute because they can give the impression that Parliament is interested in only one of several important duties and makes no mention of the others—although they are mentioned elsewhere in the Bill. From that rather narrow point of view, I have a doubt on Amendment No. 3.
However, on Amendment No. 10 my doubts are more serious. Clauses 52 to 60 of the Bill, nine clauses altogether, impose very specific duties upon the new water companies to ensure good water quality. I realise that that is not the only issue about which the noble Lord is worried. He is much more worried about people who pollute water, who may have nothing to do with the water companies. However, that is referred to in the Bill in Clauses 61
46
to 63, under the heading of contamination, waste and misuse of water.
If we then consider Clause 105, to which reference is made in Amendment No. 10, we find that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is mentioned. Great strides in preventing water pollution, and punishing water polluters, have been made as a result of that Act. Under the common law of tort, any person who suffers damage or injury to health through water pollution or damage, for example to a processing business—paper processing depends upon a pure supply of water—can receive damages in court. That is one of the matters envisaged in Amendment No. 10. However, my noble friend will have taken stock of the existing law. Whether or not the present law and its remedies are well enforced is another question. We can only make laws; we cannot guarantee their enforcement, any more than we can guarantee their being obeyed. I should have thought that the legal availability of remedies under the present law is pretty massive, in addition to Clauses 52 to 63 inclusive of the Bill. Therefore I seriously doubt whether the amendment is necessary.
I have one further problem on Amendment No. 10. Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State shall, at the request of the Authority, make regulations for the purposes of achieving the objectives in subsection ( 1 ) above".
But any regulations that were made would overlap to a greater extent with the existing law. I should rather have primary legislation dealing with this important matter than regulations made even by the Secretary of State.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: I want to remind your Lordships of a point made by my noble friend Lord Shannon at Second Reading, which is that the polluter never pays. We should not imagine that he ever pays. He puts it on to the price of the product, and what is being done is the transfer of a measure of purchasing power from the producer of goods to his consumer and then over again to cheapen the price of water. The noble Earl made this point well at Second Reading.
I can see nothing wrong with proposed Amendment No. 3.1 await the judgment of the noble Earl, who may tell me that it is not necessary because it is already provided for in some other clause of the Bill. I am not an expert on draftsmanship and am guided on this by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said that the Water Bill is the longest Bill in history. I am reminded of a line of the poet Swinburn that even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea.
I shall wait for the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, to tell me, if the noble Lord wishes to press his amendment, whether it is necessary for me to take part.
The Earl of Onslow: As a result of the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I am tempted to say that even though the polluter passes on his costs to his ultimate client, that is the price that his ultimate client will jolly well have to pay. Under the safety at work legislation, one cannot have unguarded machinery because one can sell a

47
ploughshare cheaper without the safety at work legislation. Both Amendments Nos. 3 and 10 moved from the Benches opposite seem to me to be eminently sensible. I am convinced that my noble friend Lord Caithness has reams of beautifully written Civil Service English to say why the amendments are defective, but the point made is valid. If, as my noble friend Lord Renton says, it is covered in the Bill already, all we want my noble friend to say is that the amendment is unnecessary. If it is unnecessary because it is covered already, we shall all be pleased.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not intend to intervene either, but I was tempted by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. In the sense that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, said, it is true that the polluter does not pay. On the other hand, if the polluter has to add the cost of remedying the pollution to his prices there is some incentive on him which otherwise does not exist to reduce the pollution. I strongly support the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. If we did not hold to the principle of making the polluter pay, at least in the first instance, we should be back to Lord Shaftesbury and the employment of children in our factories.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I had not intended to intervene either, but I should like to put a thought to my noble friend. Whereas it is true to say that it is not the polluter who pays, but the consumer who invariably pays, I believe it is true to say that under the Bill the regulator would not permit the polluter to pass on the cost to the consumer if the pollution was due to negligence.
Lord Addington: If we are considering such a fundamental environmental point as the polluter pays, we should try to get this into perspective. This is a great way of saying that if someone damages the environment—that is, the environment as a whole; not just individuals and not just the pollution of water—and something as valuable to our country as a river ecological system where the whole system may be damaged, there should be some way of ensuring that at the very least those responsible do not profit from the damage. If we can safely say that people who do the damage must at least meet the cost of making the damage good, that would be a sound thing to have in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: These two amendments focus upon the role of the NRA in improving the water environment and the means by which this is to be achieved.
Dealing first with Amendment No. 3, its purpose is to make clear, by a reference in Clause 1, that reduction of pollution and hence improvement in water quality is a central purpose of the NRA. That this is to be the NRA's purpose should be amply clear from the terms of the Government's policies and all that they are seeking to achieve through this Bill: from the establishment of the NRA itself; from the substantial increase in investment the Government propose for the improvement of sewage
48
treatment works and from the extension and strengthening of pollution controls in Part III.
But the amendment is rendered unnecessary not only by these considerations. It is made unnecessary by the way in which Chapter I of Part III is structured, which specifically requires the NRA to make the reduction of pollution its guiding purpose.
The fact is that our declared objective of controlling pollution and improving water quality is built in, clearly and inescapably, to the legislation itself. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to Clause 103. The Secretary of State and the NRA have the duty to exercise their powers under Chapter I so as to achieve the statutory objectives set under Clause 102. In the words of Clause 102(1), these objectives—which will be set after public consulation—will be,
"for the purpose of maintaining and improving the quality of controlled waters".
Thus the objectives are to improve water quality, and all the pollution control powers in the Bill must be used to that end. It will be outside the authority of both the Secretary of State and the NRA to use the powers in the Bill with any other end in view.
Let me confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and to my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Renton that the amendment is already fully and firmly secured by the Bill. In these circumstances, I suggest that this amendment adds nothing of substance to the Bill, and that there is accordingly nothing to be gained from it.
Amendment No. 10, which we are also discussing but which is not consequential on but separate from Amendment No. 3, would insert in the Bill a commitment to the principle that the polluter should pay. We accept that principle and I assure the Committee that it is fully informed of the detailed provisions of the Bill, and in particular Chapter III. For this reason we do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but before I set out the reasons in detail let me set out the two general points of introduction.
First, we reiterated recently in our Environment in Trust leaflets that the costs of pollution control must be borne by the polluter so that the true costs of any activity are passed on to those who benefit. It is a fact of economic life that if such costs fall to the consumers, they can take right decisions about consumption in the light of the price they pay. That means that the charges to the customer and to the water consumers will rise to meet the costs of the water authorities of improving effluent discharges from sewage treatment works. But we believe that the Bill and privatisation will work to reduce the increases in cost which are necessary to secure the environmental improvements we seek.
Secondly, let not our reluctance to accept this amendment cast any doubt on our commitment to such improvement. As I have indicated on another amendment, our declared objective of controlling pollution and improving water quality is built in clearly and inescapably to the legislation itself. That is by way of background.
Let me now demonstrate that our proposals for pollution costs and charging in each of the relevant

49
areas fully reflect this principle and make the amendment unnecessary. In the case of effluent discharge consents under Schedule 11, the costs of complying with current standards or achieving new ones when these are tightened will fall directly on the discharger; and after privatisation these will be the sewerage companies through borrowing or charges to customers, rather than the public purse. In the case of precautionary measures under Clauses 107 and 108, such as regulations on storage or controls within protection zones, it will again be the person responsible for the pollution who will have to pay for the measures necessary to prevent it. The only exception we anticipate is nitrate because of its relationship to good agricultural practice and the difficulty of identifying the source of the pollution, but the Committee can consider the merits of that at a later time.
In the case of pollution incidents, actual or anticipated, Clause 111 provides that the costs of all the steps undertaken, including preliminary surveys to locate the outbreak, can be recovered. Where prosecutions are mounted the court will be able to award the NRA its costs in bringing the prosecution. On indictment, unlimited fines can be imposed. Fines are a matter for the court to determine. But the Government's view remains that expressed some two years ago by the then Lord Chancellor when he told the Magistrates' Association that it was important that the level of fines be such as to make clear that water pollution offences did not pay.
Finally—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is not aware of this—on 22nd February we issued a consultation paper about the recovery of costs associated with discharge consents and the regular monitoring of effluent quality. Schedule 11, paragraph 9, provides for that. Previously those costs had been paid for by taxpayers or consumers of water services.
Our consultation paper sets out the basis for a new charging scheme based on the principle that the polluter pays for the cost of his activities. In this case, the dischargers are for the most part the water and sewerage undertakings and the industrial dischargers of waste water. A substantial proportion of the NRA's total cost for water quality regulation and pollution control is likely to be recovered through the charging scheme.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that this is a formidable array of measures. It gives expression to the "polluter pays" principle in a way that is appropriate in specific concrete cases; not by expression of a general principle which is unnecessary and can be unhelpful, as proposed in the amendment.
I should like to deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, about river quality. I remind the Committee that 90 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality compared with 75 per cent. of those in Europe. One river alone contributes more than half the pollution entering the North Sea; that is the Rhine. Our position stands well in any comparison but I agree with Members who say that it needs improving. We are acting. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned some of the work. He referred to the improvement to the estuary
50
and to the River Thames. I take this opportunity to remind the Committee that we have also been tackling other estuaries. For example, the Mersey basin scheme is a 25-year project which will cost billions of pounds.
In inviting the Committee to reject the amendment, I add one qualification. If Members can identify any specific area where our provisions do not properly reflect the polluter pays principle and where its application is not practical and beneficial, I shall listen with care and sympathy.
Baroness White: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation but I wonder whether he will reflect again on the first of the amendments. I understand his difficulties with regard to the second.
As regards Amendment No. 3, does the Minister not believe that it might be helpful, even though not strictly necessary, to include a reference to pollution at the beginning of the description? If we are ever to reach Clause 103 I believe that it would be helpful to include such a reference. The control of pollution is one of the major functions in the popular mind of the National Rivers Authority, although it will have other functions. Surely if one is considering the impact on public opinion it will do no harm to accept the first of these amendments, even though the Minister may have difficulties with the second.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the Minister sits down I wish to ask a question, although almost certainly he will not know the answer. As a result of deep draining at Horsey Mere, one of the Norfolk Broads, a great deal of nasty iron has surfaced. The water is now the colour of rust instead of being gin clear as it used to be. It is the result of a complicated chemical process which I do not understand. It was caused by the local drainage authority and agreed to by the Anglian Water Authority. Will the NRA be able to do something about such instances? I realise that it is at a different end of the scale to the Thames or Mersey estuaries but it is a matter about which we should take consideration and care. I do not expect the Minister to know the answer but I should be grateful if he will write to me or ask his department to look into the matter.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of CaithnessIn answer to my noble friend, I recently spent a happy day visiting the Norfolk Broads. That problem was not brought to my attention and therefore I do not know the answer. However, if pollution and damage are being caused to the environment or to the river systems, the matter must be taken seriously. I believe that it is within the remit of the NRA to tackle the problem, but I shall make absolutely certain of that.
I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady White. I believe that Members who are interested in the Bill will reach Clause 103. I hope that the noble Baroness stays with us long enough to discuss that clause: indeed, I hope that she stays with us until we reach the end of the Bill.
I am not against Amendment No. 3 but I believe it is unnecessary. I look towards my noble friend Lord Renton with some fear and trepidation because

51
I have been chastised by him on numerous occasions for including a provision which is unnecessary. We need to keep a Bill—albeit a large Bill—as lean as possible.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If I have to choose between upsetting the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I prefer to upset the noble Lord and have the Minister on my side. He has the power in this matter.
I am more than satisfied that in respect of Amendment No. 10 the Minister has gone a considerable way to assure me and those outside the Committee that where the evidence is found—and that requires enforcement—and where the determination of the Government or the authority with the power to deal with the matter is strong and resolute, the polluter is capable of being made to pay.
At this early stage of the Bill we wish to demonstrate to people outside the Committee that the Government mean business and are serious. The noble Baroness, Lady White, made a powerful point. She said that we wish to write on the face of the Bill as early as possible the fact that pollution, with a capital "P", and the way in which we deal with and eradicate it, is a major element in the Bill. I do not use a stick to beat the Government. Rather defensively, the Minister pointed out that our record of clean rivers bears a comparison with others in Europe; I do not disagree.
I hope that at this early stage the Minister will not say that although he agrees with us there is no form of words which he is willing or able to accept. The Bill contains 380 pages which have been conceived and put together by the Government. In this case those who oppose the Government politically suggest that one-fifth or one-sixth of a page can be added. In that connection, there is not a great deal between us.
I do not dispute the Government's intentions to achieve what is sought in Amendments Nos. 3 and 10, and I shall not repeat many of the arguments. However, we must demonstrate to the public that when evidence is put before the Government of a deliberate act of pollution they will deal with it. I have evidence of industrialists who have deceived the inspector by agreeing to act in a certain way. Authorities have reported to me instances where firms have deceived the inspector as to the true condition. The polluter must be hit hard. The penalty must be punitive and, more important, it must be public. The greatest weapon for any authority is to be able to threaten people who are being deliberately anti-social and anti-environmentalist. When they are caught, the evidence is produced and the tribunal is satisfied they may have to pay enormous sums of money. If everyone knows of that, it will be bad for their business.
In Amendment No. 3 we wish to satisfy a raft of people outside the Committee including the taxpayers, residents, and those who have been a little jaundiced as to whether this and other governments have been serious. The amendment writes on the face of the Bill at an early stage the fact that we are serious not only about water but also about pollution.
52
There is another reason for tabling the amendment. The Minister told the Committee about the powers which are open to the Secretary of State in other clauses. We want more muscle to be in the hands of the National Rivers Authority. We want it to be able to say, "This is one of our prime responsibilities". In speaking to members of the National Rivers Authority the Minister and his advisers will make that perfectly clear, but we want to strengthen the arm of the authority.
Before I decide whether I intend to press this amendment, I invite the Minister to say that if I withdraw it he will be prepared to think of a suitable form of words acceptable to him which either he or I will move as an amendment at a later stage. I am not asking him to give me a commitment that that is possible but I ask him to enter into discussions.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies to that, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I have counted the number of pages in the Bill dealing with pollution. As near as possible, there are 19 and a half pages, in addition to the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will remember that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill says that Part III largely replaces Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Therefore one cannot add the two together.
Lord Renton: The greater part of that Act is to remain. The parts which are to be repealed are listed in the repeal schedule.
The Earl of Caithness: There is a more conciliatary tone from the Opposition now. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, says that he does not want a commitment. Of course I shall look at this. I do not oppose Amendment No. 3 and never have done. I merely say that it is unnecessary because of the reason which my noble friend Lord Renton gave. This matter is very much at the forefront of the Government's mind and at the forefront of everything in this Bill. Let us look at the wording between now and another stage to see whether the noble Lord's wording is absolutely right or whether some other form of wording is more appropriate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I recognise a gift horse when I see one and I shall not look it in the mouth. I believe that that is as much as I shall get because I remember parliamentary arithmetic of half an hour ago as well. Therefore, in view of what the Minister said, which I agree is not a commitment other than a commitment to look together at the form of words along the lines of Amendment No. 3, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert ("and no such function shall be carried out, whether by contract or otherwise, by any person

53
except in accordance with section (separation of environmental functions etc.) below").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 4 is to give effect to repeated government statements that they want to separate the poachers from the gamekeepers. I believe that the Government have rightly taken considerable credit for the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, largely on the grounds that it does just that; namely, that it distinguishes those who have the responsibility for conservation, water and river quality from those who have the responsibility for providing water and sewerage services.
The problem with those assurances is that they are not reflected in the Bill. The specific question to which I am referring in Amendment No. 4—and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 9—is the contracting out of the functions of the National Rivers Authority. I shall not say that we are happy about the extension of contracting out by this Government generally or about the forced extension of contracting out to local authorities in recent legislation. However, I must say straight away that these two amendments are not against the principle of contracting out; far from it. They recognise that the National Rivers Authority, if it is to maintain a relatively slim and tight structure, will have to contract out some services, particularly those involved in collecting samples of water quality.
We do not find acceptable the possibility that the contracting out should be allowed back to the water plcs. The water authorities have been responsible for collecting samples and for analysing them ever since they were established. I am certainly not saying that the people who have carried out that work have not acted in anything other than total good faith and with complete professionalism. However, the fact is that since the water authorities were established, the number of pollution control and inspection officers has declined. Understandably, I suppose, the water authorities have given priority to their operational rather than to their inspection needs. Therefore, the resources devoted to dealing with pollution have not been available in the way in which they should have been.
That stricture also applies to central government. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has been understaffed. There have been vacancies there, just as there have been for pollution control officers in water authorities.
The difficulty which I see about contracting back to the water supply plcs the job of dealing with pollution control is that, with their new objective of making a profit as private companies, there is a direct conflict between what their staff would do in fulfilling the contracting out functions and the objectives of the company.
If the contracting out goes back to the water companies, inevitably when pollution is discovered there will be a substantial cost in putting that right and there will be the risk of prosecution. It will no doubt be a requirement of prosecution under Part III of the Bill that the officer who discovered the pollution will be required to give evidence against his own company. That does not mean that anybody
54
will act in anything other than good faith, but it means that there will be a conflict of interests in that person's mind. He will either act less effectively than he would otherwise act as a reporter of infringement, or he will be a less than effective witness for the prosecution, or he will land up unpopular in his own organisation which is responsible for his pay and rations. The result of that is that pollution control in that respect will be an unpopular job in the water companies and will not be a natural road to promotion. It will not be attractive as a career. That is not a very satisfactory situation.
The Government recognise that the NRA has to keep some part of that process in its own hands. Mr. Colin Moynihan, the Parliamentary Secretary, in Standing Committee on 10th January at col. 49 of Hansard, said that the NRA would have to take responsibility for collecting all the samples. That is central to any contracting back to the plcs which may take place. I suggest that that does not go far enough.
As my noble friend Lord Graham said a few moments ago, there are examples of polluters playing off one authority against another. One example came to my notice of a plating company which told the water authority that it was disposing of the waste to a waste disposal site. It told the waste disposal authority that it had the water authority's permission to dispose of the waste down a foul drain. In fact, it was doing neither but was simply dumping it in the yard, with rather serious environmental effects.
In order to achieve an effective regulatory mechanism, we need to have a mechanism which fulfils two functions. First, it must be integrated and cover all forms of pollution; both waste disposal and water quality. Secondly, it must be local. In Amendment No. 9 we specifically suggest that local authorities, who have had many years' experience of environmental protection and have an environmental protection service many of whose activities are widely praised, would be a repository of expertise and suitable for contracting out.
Therefore, the amendment is not against contracting out as such, but against contracting back to the water supply plcs. That is the logical and rational way to deal with what otherwise might become a serious conflict of interests and a serious departure in the text of the Bill from the declared intentions of the Government. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Ezra: In supporting Amendment No. 4 and the related Amendment No. 9, I, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, remind the Committee that the Government have laid enormous emphasis on the division of responsibilities and functions as between the NRA, on the one hand, and the operating water companies on the other.
On Second Reading the Government spoke up strongly for the existing organisation being preserved under privatisation; namely, the river basin system. However, I think they have persuaded the public in general that the division of responsibilities which is now inherent in the Bill is a more satisfactory way of handling the matter. That being so, however, we

55
feel that this should be stated clearly and without ambiguity; and that is one of the purposes of the amendment.
The other point is that there can be blurred edges in this division of functions. The blurring of the edges can mainly be created by contracting back from the NRA some of the functions which it has taken over as part of this division of responsibility from the operating companies. That is causing a great deal of concern. I know that at one time it was felt that in very large measure the functions which the companies previously undertook and which have been transferred to the NRA would be handed back—at least, that is what I was told on a visit some weeks ago to one of the water companies. I do not know to what extent this contracting back will take place in the mind of the Government, but I should have thought that it could be a very dangerous and confusing practice and that we could end up with a situation which is neither one thing nor the other.
There are others who can perform some of these functions. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, local authorities have expertise in this environmental field in the laboratory testing of samples. There are, of course, a number of private institutions and companies which can also carry out these functions. Therefore, I should have thought that there was plenty of choice, even if the NRA does not at its inception have the facilities necessary to do this work itself. It would seem that the Government, in pursuit of their own objectives, should pay particular attention to that aspect and reassure the Committee that it is indeed their intention to divide these functions and not to blur the edges.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before any other noble Lords speak on this amendment, may I first make an apology? There is an error which may have caused confusion. Amendment No. 4 refers to,
"section (separation of environmental functions etc.).
Amendment No. 9, in the side heading, refers to,
"Preservation of the environment".
Amendment No. 9 should have had the side heading,
"Separation of environmental functions etc.",
so that the two amendments related to each other. It is understood that the side headings are not part of the text of the Bill, but I apologise for any confusion which may have been caused by my error.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he had no objection to subcontracting and expects it to go on to some extent. However, the wording of Amendment No. 9 suggests that he has no objection to manacling the NRA in arranging its subcontractors. Subsection (4) of the amendment reads,
"The Authority shall not sub-contract, or otherwise cause or enable to be carried out, any of its functions to any person who is for the time being, or has been in the previous five years, a water or sewerage undertaker within the terms of this section".
I agree that it would be wrong to subcontract to anybody who could not, if anything happened, be an impartial witness because of past commitments
56
or who had shown that they were not proper people to carry out the functions, but I should have thought that subsection (4) was going a little too far. One would be ruling out by statute people who might be most excellent in carrying out subcontracting work. I can well accept up to a point that one would not want to subcontract to a person who was currently employed by the previous undertaker but, as I said, to impose a five-year embargo seems to be the deliberate application of manacles.
Surely the NRA, which will be doing the subcontracting, will be able to form a judgment on whether the subcontractors doing the work are the right or the wrong people. To write into the statute that anyone who has been engaged in such work in the previous five years will not be allowed to make use of their expertise—even if the NRA believes them to be suitable—is going too far. I wonder whether the noble Lord wishes that extreme embargo to remain, because it does not fit in with the rest of his argument as I thought I heard it.
The Earl of Onslow: One should certainly support the principle behind this amendment. It would be seriously difficult for the NRA to go, for example, to Anglian, Thames, or whichever are the successor companies and say, "Please can you test your own water to see whether it is dirty?". It puts the man employed by Anglian, Thames, or whoever, in an incredibly difficult, indeed an impossible, position.
Having said that, the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is extremely valid. I believe there is nothing to stop one from setting up as a sampling company and nicking all the best scientists from Anglian and Thames. They should be better at doing the work employed by someone else whose job it is to do it. There is a separation of functions. A man can switch allegiance from one company to another with remarkable rapidity. One need only look at how Ministers switch from one department to another and take up the cudgels on behalf of their new department with immaculate ease. There is no difficulty in that. The point made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is perfectly valid and the point raised by the Opposition should be taken closely in hand by the Government.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 4, together with the stipulations in Amendment No. 9 to which it refers, would have the effect, first, of preventing the NRA from contracting any work out to a water or sewerage undertaker and, secondly, of putting local authorities in a privileged position as regards the letting of contracts for any work it did decide to contract out. The first three subsections of Amendment No. 9 do not seem to me to achieve any clear purpose, since the separation of functions between the NRA and the plcs is built solidly into the entire fabric of the Bill already.
Dealing with the substantive effects of these amendments, therefore, I should like to say that as regards the first of them I am of course entirely in sympathy with the underlying aim, which is to preserve the independence of the NRA from bodies which should be at arms' length relationship with it. The role of the NRA is that of regulator and of the

57
plcs is that of those being regulated. But this entirely laudable aim not only cannot in practice be given effect in this way, but in my view simply does not call for a stipulation of this sort.
As regards practicalities, it is clear that some vital computing work, for instance, can only be carried out by the successor plc in the first instance. This is because of the impossibility, in the time available, of unpicking systems which were never designed with a view to the splitting of functions which the Bill will create. Noble Lords opposite may be tempted to argue that in that case the whole reorganisation process should be delayed until a clean break can be organised, but quite apart from the unacceptability of delay the Government simply do not see any real problem in achieving arrangements between the NRA and the plcs which combine independence with practicality and cost-effectiveness.
The NRAAC is satisfied that there are no real problems whether of confidentiality or reliability in the setting up of contracts with the plcs either for computing facilities or for laboratory facilities, which are the specific subject of Amendment No. 391. Most of the NRA's laboratory analysis work will be done in house, but in those cases where a contract with the plc is the most cost-effective solution, we have endorsed a set of safeguards which will ensure three vital requirements.
First, all water samples must be collected by NRA staff or under their direct control. Second, there must be guaranteed anonymity of samples so that the technician does not know where they have come from. That answers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow. Thirdly, there must be proper arrangements for independent audit and cross checking. In cases where there is a possible prosecution of a plc there will be provision for in house facilities in other regions to do the work. Thus the NRA's independence will be assured, and in addition efficiency will be promoted via the comparisons which can be made between the work done in house and that contracted out.
Turning to the second strand of these amendments, the Government see no obvious merit in requiring the NRA always to put local authorities on its tender list for jobs it intends to contract out. A local authority may well have experience and expertise directly relevant to NRA functions, in which case the NRA will no doubt make sure, as a matter of sound management, that it is indeed invited to tender without being directed to do so by statute. I suggest that it would be unseemly to put the authorities in a special position in this respect. In the final analysis, in all cases where contracting back to plcs and others is proposed, this will be allowed only when the NRA and Ministers are fully satisfied that there is no compromise to the independence of the NRA. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the Minister has gone scarcely any further than his honourable friend Colin Moynihan in another place almost two months ago. At that stage he indicated that there would be further safeguards. I believe he
58
gave the impression that they would be effective. What we have proposed now are clearly not effective safeguards and do not meet the substance of the point. If the Minister were to say to me, "Yes, there is a difficulty about computing facilities and if you withdraw the amendment computing facilities in the first 12 months, two years, or whatever, can be exempted", I would gladly do so on the basis that the remainder of it would then be accepted by Government; but I do not hear the Minister saying that to me.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that in all honesty his answer was not very satisfactory. Please let us not go through the irritating performance of a Division which we know who will win. The arguments on this occasion are firmly in favour of divorcing the NRA's functions from those of the plcs. The difficulties are highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Individual staff would have to give evidence against their employers, and that and other factors have not been satisfactorily answered by the Minister.
I accept that there are difficulties concerning computing and administration, but in due course they can be overcome. One can possibly let the issue go for three or four years, because that is not important. The ultimate situation of having people giving evidence against themselves puts employers and employees in an impossible position. It does not save money. It means that someone else will have to set up the system because it will still have to be carried out. It will not necessarily save any money by having it done by the plcs. There is no cost involved. It seems not very pleasant to leave it as it is. I beg my noble friend to have another serious and hard think about it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: The Committee will understand that I had intended to go through a period of silence for a few days as I am involved in a somewhat embarrassing affair elsewhere, for which I apologise. I have been drawn to my feet on this occasion because I believe it right that, as chairman of the advisory committee, I should make it clear that the position spelt out by the Minister is exactly and directly in line with the advice that the advisory committee has given after the most careful consideration of the practicalities of the issues. We looked at this from the word go. We were concerned with two matters.
The first was that we were in a position to carry out our job, and computers is only one aspect of it. We shall certainly need the plc computers for a time. We spent a great deal of time looking at the laboratory set-up throughout the country and satisfying ourselves as to the most effective way of carrying out our duties. We duly submitted our advice to the Minister. We are a fallible body and our advice may be wrong, but I do not believe that the Committee should be left in any doubt that the advice was perfectly clear and specific and that the whole of my committee, having considered this matter most carefully over a prolonged period, is perfectly happy.

59
As I said at Second Reading, the arrangements will not in any way compromise our integrity or effectiveness. We believe that there is a perfectly sensible and practical solution to the problem and that we shall be able to carry out our duties. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke about the persons who discover the pollution. I believe he slightly implied that we shall be handing over the actual responsibilities for pollution control to the plc. That is not what is proposed. There are certain parts of the operation, such as the actual sampling in the laboratories, which, with the safeguards that have been spelt out, can be done in this way. That is the clear view of the advisory committee.
Baroness White: We have the chairman of the advisory committee with us. I am not sure whether it is in order, but perhaps I may ask him whether he and his colleagues considered what was suggested by my noble friend—that there should be a time limit followed by a review of the situation. There can be real difficulties. The matter has to be seen to be just, as well as being justly administered. There are problems concerning staff loyalty. Not all authorities are able to provide the National Rivers Authority with adequate scientific staff and equipment. I recognise that fully. But should it not be the aim of the National Rivers Authority within a reasonable period to provide itself with adequate facilities? Might we not think in those terms of some modification?
Lord Crickhowell: I do not know whether it is in order for me to rise again. In any event, the National Rivers Authority will review its arrangements from time to time. We have spent a good deal of time in recent weeks discussing the practicalities of the arrangements we propose. If we decided that it was necessary to make a change, that is a matter that the NRA will have to decide. The NRA Advisory Committee has taken the view that the NRA will be the responsible body to decide whether the job is being done effectively and it believes that the arrangements are satisfactory. Of course it will review the position from time to time, and it will no doubt have to answer in Parliament and elsewhere if it is felt that it is not carrying out its duties effectively.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: It is very helpful for my noble friend to make the contribution that he has. I gather that in effect what he has said is that the answer given by the Minister is absolutely in keeping with the advisory committee's recommendation. But we have in front of us two amendments and we are at the Committee stage. My noble friend can rise again without any problem if he feels inclined. Do the two amendments with which we are dealing at the moment cut across the advice that the advisory committee gave to the Minister and which he has repeated or do they not?
Lord Crickhowell: I have reported to the Committee that the NRA would be faced with some severe practical difficulties, at least in the first year or two in carrying out its functions effectively.
60
Certainly the task and the cost in one or two instances of setting up wholly independent arrangements in the short timescale would be difficult in practical terms.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I thank my noble friend very much.
Lord Ross of Newport: I used to have a private water supply. I took a jar of the water to my local water authority. It said that the authority would not test it but that I should go to the environmental health officer. I went to the environmental health officer in South Shropshire and was given a report on the state of my water. Will such practices continue or will the expertise of local authorities be ignored altogether? That seems absolutely daft.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Lord may have misheard me. I did point out that it would be very much a possibility for local authorities to offer their expertise. I said that earlier in my reply.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. He has provided recommendations and advice based on practicality. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will be aware it looks as though with regard to information technology the period will be two years. With regard to the laboratories, I believe that eight out of 10 of the regions are on course to be fully independent. My noble friend pointed out that there are practical factors. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the NRA has a supremacy in itself. If it is not satisfied it will clearly say so.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, indicated his interest and I found his interventions extremely helpful. As I understood them, he said that what the Minister said in his presentation on the matter was exactly as advised by certain organisations with which he is closely associated. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head in agreement with that statement. However, the statement made by the Minister included a reference to Amendment No. 391, which is not grouped with this amendment.
The noble Lord who presented the case on behalf of the Opposition said, and I agreed with him, that the Minister went no further than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place except in regard to one matter. I understood the Minister to say that he agreed with the text of Amendment No. 391. The speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place made no reference to the matter put forward in Amendment No. 391 in the names of my noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Ross of Newport. It says:
"for the purposes of ensuring that it maintains an independent regulatory function, to direct it as to the extent to which it may or may not contract out, or otherwise delegate, the sampling and analysis of water or effluent".
I have not studied the Bill with the amount of care which I normally devote to Bills with which I am associated, but it seemed to me that in his presentation the Minister went a long way towards the main theme and the practicalities of the amendments before the Committee. I understood his reference to Amendment No. 391 to mean that

61
he had some sympathy with it. That would certainly be helpful in coming a little nearer to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, my noble friend Lord Ezra and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. If I am wrong, the noble Lord and other noble Lords will tell me so.
Baroness Phillips: I should like some clarification. I found it rather unusual that a noble Lord who will be involved in the running of a certain authority should make comments which seem to come from his background with another committee with which he is concerned. Surely his advice will be useful when he actually occupies that post. However, at the moment he seems to be influencing the decision in something in which he has a pecuniary interest.
Lord Crickhowell: That is not so. I am chairman of a public body set up by the Secretary of State to give advice. It has been open throughout about the advice it has given. What I have told the Committee this afternoon is no more than I have told a large number of organisations to which I have spoken over the past six months. The NRA Advisory Committee has been open about the advice which has been submitted to the Government. It would have been a rather odd position if this Committee was not as fully informed as the large number of organisations in the water industry which have heard the chairman of the NRA Advisory Committee setting out its position in recent weeks and months.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Mason, who is a member of the committee, and I spoke at Second Reading and spelt out what we felt was right. We said that this Committee should know about the views of the advisory committee. I have been careful not to speak of my own views. Indeed I decided not to speak during the Committee stage about my views. I felt that it might be helpful if, on a point of clarification about the advice given by a public body which has been made public, the Committee should be made aware of that advice.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that I may be guilty of confusing or misleading the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I was under the impression that Amendment No. 391 was still grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 9. That is no longer the case and therefore I have served him a red herring for which I apologise.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for talking about the red herrings he has produced in the course of his presentation. I agree that Amendment No. 391 is not grouped with these amendments. However, having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and having regard also to the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in his capacity as chairman of the NRA Advisory Committee, I should have thought that the Minister would at least take back the amendment and think about it without necessarily committing himself to anything very drastic. This is a matter of considerable importance. There has been support for the amendment from all sides of the Committee. The Government would earn a good deal of credit
62
if they gave an assurance that it would be carefully considered for the next stage. I do not know whether I am intervening too much in the province of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, but I believe that some steps should be taken by the Government to deal with the matter more fully than they have done.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Perhaps I may say a few words about sampling and laboratory testing. I confirm what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has said. The job of taking samples and testing for all the rivers in the country is an immense one. The regional water authorities are doing it at the moment as the bodies responsible for river quality and for checking what is coming out of their own and other treatment works. This is a matter of physical necessity. For the NRA to set up an organisation to do that, so to speak, overnight would be clearly impossible.
I have always thought that it would be desirable to have some contracting out to the water companies of the future because all the apparatus of monitoring and testing is there. This would avoid massive duplication, which would cost tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of pounds a year. I wonder whether it would be possible to meet the point in the minds of noble Lords opposite that the monitoring and sample taking should be absolutely reliable. Moreover, when laboratory testing is done it should be done in a way that is completely reliable in terms of the NRA's functions. Perhaps the amendment could be modified so as to stipulate that where the NRA wants to set up schemes of contracting out to the water companies of the future it must first obtain the approval of the Minister to such schemes. This would ensure that the Secretary of State was satisfied that such schemes were reasonably water-tight.
For instance, I should have thought that the monitoring could well be done by the water companies. In my view it is essential that the NRA has at least some laboratories of its own from the start for testing so as to make absolutely certain that such testing is independently done. However, I doubt whether such laboratories would need to cover the whole field. There is a practical problem here. I felt, being familiar with what goes on in this field, that it would be helpful to point out that it could be met in such a way.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, knows, there are certainly practical problems here. They are, it seems to me, of two kinds. The first is an ongoing problem which relates to the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said, for impartial witnesses in any case. A great deal of money can be involved in the enforcement of provisions to protect water quality. We must therefore be absolutely certain that the effect of Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, and the implementation and enforcement of these provisions, are not in any way damaged by the risk of partiality on the part of those taking the tests.

63
The second ongoing problem was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. He did not like the idea—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—of the period being "the previous five years". I think that there is some misunderstanding. The noble Earl and the noble Lord were assuming that a "person" is an individual who has been employed by a water undertaking. Of course, in legislation a person can mean an individual; but in this case it is much more likely to mean an organisation or company. An individual who had left a water company in order to set up in the testing or sampling business would in no way be disqualified by subsection (4) of Amendment No. 9. Therefore I do not think that that difficulty is a very real one.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I must point out that the amendment does not state a company; it reads, "to any person". As the wording stands, it means that the person could be vetoed from taking office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think not. It would have to be a company or organisation in order to carry out the work; it could not be carried out by a private individual. A "person" in this sense means a company or organisation which is an undertaking. In my view that is a common occurrence in legislation. Therefore I do not think that the long-term objections to our amendments have a great deal of strength.
However, the transitional objections seem to me to have some strength. I fully take the point that computing facilities would have to be available from the water authorities over a period. I suggested a period of a year or two and the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, confirmed that it would in fact be two years. I concede that at the outset laboratory services would have to be provided by the new water companies.
If the Minister can assure me that such arrangements are intended to be transitional and that it is the Government's intention to move as soon as possible to what we all want—that is, the separation of function between the regulator and the operator—then I shall gladly withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: I fear that I shall not be able to go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would wish. Perhaps I may just draw upon two points. First, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to practicality. There is of course an element of practicality in the matter. The connection about which we are talking in no way compromises the independence of the NRA in terms of it deciding whether it is happy, or not happy, with the arrangements.
The second point is the one made by my noble friend Lord Nugent; that is, to go blindly ahead incurring a vast amount of extra cost because of the huge investment required, when there is a satisfactory and practical alternative available, may also not be entirely satisfactory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a most disappointing answer. I offered the Minister an opportunity to give further assurances. I said that I would deal with the practical points of computing and laboratory services in the early stages of the Bill's proceedings by withdrawing the amendment and bringing forward another at a later stage. The Bill as it stands does not provide for a separation of functions between the regulator and the operator. The Minister's refusal to go any further by way of assurances means that we shall land up, when the transitional period is over, with the operator exercising those contracted-out functions on the part of the regulator.
I listened most carefully to what the Minister said about the assurances; I also listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I do no doubt that the NRA advisory committee was satisfied with the situation. However, the separation of functions is not required by the NRA advisory committee; it is required by the public. The public is the ultimate decider of what is right and what is wrong. The Minister has given no indication —despite pointing out the practical difficulties-that'he appreciates the fundamental point which is being made; namely, that you cannot contract out the regulation back to the operators. It cannot be done in the long term.
The amendment I have moved may be defective in the short term; but it reflects a wider principle which has received support from all sides of the Committee. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, with reservations, agreed that it was right. I pause momentarily in the hope that the Minister will go a little further than he has thus far and indicate that it is not the long-term intention of the Government to allow contracting out to the new water companies. Unfortunately, due to the absence of any response to my request, I have no alternative but to seek the opinion of the Committee.
6.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amherst, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L.

Ezra, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Falkland, V.

Birk, B.

Fitt, L.

Blease, L.

Foot, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Galpern, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Glenamara, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Grimond, L.

Chorley, L.

Hacking, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hampton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

65

Jeger, B.

Rea, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Rochester, L.

Listowel, E.

Ross of Newport, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Russell, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Serota, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

McNair, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Monson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Vernon, L.

Peston, L.

Walston, L.

Phillips, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton,. L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winterbottom, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Arran, E.

Harvington, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Havers, L.

Bathurst, E.

Henley, L.

Bauer, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Blatch, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Blyth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bolton, L.

Joseph, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kimball, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brain, L.

Knutsford, V.

Brookeborough, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Layton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McFadzean, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Comwallis, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cottesloe, L

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Craigton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Merrivale, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Middleton, L.

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Moran, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Munster, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Nelson, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Ferner, L.

Norrie, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goold, L.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gridley, L.

Pym, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Quinton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Radnor, E.

Renton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Renwick, L.

66

Rochdale, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Romney, E.

Swinton, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Teviot, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Teynham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Savile, L.

Trafford, L.

Selborne, E.

Trefgame, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trumpington, B

Shannon, E.

Tryon, L.

Sharpies, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wigram, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Wynford, L.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 12, leave out from first ("than") to end of line 15 and insert ("fourteen nor more than eighteen members of whom—

(a) two shall be appointed by the Minister; and

(b) the others shall be appointed by the Secretary of State as follows:

(i) one quarter from persons nominated by the Local Authority Associations;
(ii) one quarter from persons nominated by such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned with:

(a) the preservation and improvement of the physical environment;

(b) the promotion of leisure, recreational and sporting activities; and

(c) the protection and promotion of the interests of consumers.

(iii) one quarter from among persons who have experience of and have shown capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of the authority; and
(iv) one quarter from person nominated by organisations representative of employees of water or sewerage undertakers.").
The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. The argument is contained in those amendments. We have been discussing some of the functions of the NRA and the advisory committees. We now turn to the composition of the authority. There is no doubt that the NRA can be, and, I hope will be, a powerful body. We should be concerned not just with its duties but with its composition.
Clause 1(2) provides:
"The Authority shall consist of not less than eight nor more than fifteen members of whom—

(a) two shall be appointed by the Minister; and

(b) the others shall be appointed by the Secretary of State".

When he replies, the Minister should tell us why the Government's differentiation in size and representation is laid down in that way.
There is a further subsection to which I should like to draw the Committee's attention. Subsection (4) states:
"In appointing a person to be a member of the Authority, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of appointing a person who has experience of, and has shown capacity in, some matter relevant to the functions of the Authority."
We all believe that we know people who would be the best people to sit upon committees. This is not the time to say that the Minister may have it wrong. Subsection (4) deals with people to be appointed to the NRA. They must have shown capacity in some matter relevant to the function of the authority.
In Amendment No. 5 we set out what we consider to be the sensible composition of the authority. The points speak for themselves.
I wish to say a word or two about why we believe that groupings of the kind contained in Amendment No. 5 need to be written on the face of the Bill. First, a quarter of the members should be nominated by the local authority associations. Other appointments appear in later amendments but I believe that local authorities have an overwhelming case for having direct representation on the body. After all, the assets that will be managed were at one time substantially owned by the local authorities or by local people. They were owned by and ceded to the existing water authorities with premises which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rippon has reminded the Committee more than once, have been very badly damaged by the passage of time. The undertakings were local, in the main municipal and basically they belonged to the people. The argument that we wish to advance is that, if the case is made that the only people who are entitled to represent the public are Members of Parliament, then it is offensive to suggest that other local people such as councillors of any or all political persuasions are not able to represent the views of local people.
Besides ensuring that there are people who know all about the City, flotations and the values of land, about doing deals and development, the Government must also include on the body representatives who know all about people. That is the case for local authority representation. Achieving it may be tricky. A number of bodies represent local people: the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils, the Association of London Auhorities and other organisations might have a case. But among the group of people who will manage this powerful organisation should be local people.
We beg the Government to take on board the goodwill that could exist and go a very long way if the Secretary of State shows sympathy for the raison d'être of the amendments. We suggest that one quarter of the people involved should represent and relate to the preservation and the improvement of the environment. That will be a major part of the responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority. We have already had a canter over the course in regard to the assets and how they will be used. Noble Lords on this side of the House and people in the country believe that where those assets are currently being used for the enjoyment of the public in one form or another that use should continue.
There are the environmental groups: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural England—and rural Wales. There are even some bodies which exist for the preservation of Wales in a different form. We are
68
not being too specific about the bodies that should be represented, but many people outside think that if the body which will manage the resources does not include people with specific interests it will be defective in one way or another.
The other important matter is that the people will be nominated by the bodies and not invited by the Secretary of State to represent those bodies. The Government must get out of the habit of believing that they are the only body competent to or capable of inviting groups of people to nominate a representative. The Secretary of State knows many people and through his office he has access to lists of the great and the good. But why not trust the environmental bodies and the local authorities to come up with individuals of the right kind?
Then we mention people representing the promotion of leisure, recreational and sporting activities—a great wedge of activities in which millions of people take part. There are many people closer to those pursuits than I—the literally millions of anglers, ramblers and people who enjoy the countryside. Some means must be found of giving them a slice of the action; they should not just be invited to have one of their people nominated by the Secretary of State. They should be able to do it themselves.
Then there is,
"the protection and promotion of the interests of consumers".
I imagine that in that phrase the pre-eminent bodies are the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association, but there may be others as well. Those are the main bodies but other groups of people are included here, such as the representatives of employees of the water or sewerage undertakers. The Government make great play of the fact that they are providing workers with the right to buy into the financial action of their companies. I am sure that play will be made of the fact that those employees of bodies which will be privatised will have a mechanism which allows the workers to become shareholders in the business. We all know the value of shareholdings but we are suggesting that, in addition to the value of the shareholdings, there should be a place at the top table. The employees should have some representatives—we are not specific about numbers—who represent the workers. How do we do it? I am not talking about trade unions but representatives of the employees chosen through a mechanism which will need to be worked out.
As with everything else, the Government can kid themselves that all the interests which I have mentioned will be well looked after by the men and women whom the Minister already has in mind. We are asking, "Why not go out to the people whose interests the Government say they look after and invite them to nominate the men and women whom they trust and with whom they work?"
The other category of people whom I think I ought to mention and who we believe should have a place at the top table among what I call "the authorities" is:
"persons who have experience of and have shown capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of the authority".
Here the Minister is perfectly entitled to say that there are men and women who know how to run a business and take big decisions. I am not saying that that is not necessary; of course it is. But I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon these bodies. He should be quite clear that many critics could be silenced if there were somebody whom they themselves had chosen to represent their interests at the top table. That is the genesis of Amendment No. 5.
The other amendment, Amendment No. 6, says:
"Before making any appointment under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such individuals and organisations representative of local authorities, or as appear to him, or to the Minister, to be concerned".
So we do not just want them there; we also want them to be consulted.
Accountability in these matters is very important. If the Minister is looking for ways in which the passage of the Bill can be eased, I seriously suggest to him—not that it is my job to ease the passage of the Bill—that it will be easier if people outside who will be deeply affected by the Bill in all the categories I have mentioned have an opportunity to have access to the top table. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: I rise in order briefly to support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Frankly, I believe that this part of the Bill is vague, although I suspect that we are trying to keep open a gate which is already virtually closed, Most of the appointments have been made or are in draft. I should, however, like to support the view that certainly the statutory and voluntary bodies in the conservation sector ought to be represented, and that that ought to be spelt out.
I suspect that when the Minister replies he will say, "We don't want to have too big a management body. We want to keep it down to a reasonable size". I have some sympathy with that. We are, after all, asking in this amendment to increase those numbers, but perhaps we could have some variation on these numbers. If the noble Lord is going to say that there will be difficulty in getting the voluntary bodies to nominate, all I can say is that I have the honour to chair a body called Wildlife Link, which, as a small umbrella group, covers something like 50 bodies involved with conservation, and there will be no difficulty at all.
I think his own colleague, the Minister responsible for this Bill, Mr. Michael Howard, will confirm the expertise of the small group that I took to see him, and particularly the chap representing Friends of the Earth. The Minister accepted quite frankly that he put forward some excellent suggestions. There will not be any difficulty about that.
Of course the local authorities ought to be supported, although the Government do not really believe in local government, and I do not know why they do not abolish it altogether. However, while we have local government it ought to be on the NRA, and I believe that most of the unions should be represented too. It would alleviate some of the concern, particularly in the conservation movement.
70
I think the NCC should be represented, or at least the Countryside Commission, or one or the other. If these things are done then I say to the Minister that he is going some way to alleviating the concern.
We are going to get a lot of amendments dealing with the regional and other bodies and representation on them. I think the noble Lord will confirm that the work that has been done on some of these bodies in a slightly different form has been first rate and much appreciated. Therefore surely it is only right that some of them at least with the expertise should be on the main body of the National Rivers Authority. I beg to support this amendment.
Lord Renton: I hope that my noble friends will not accept this amendment. The first question is whether it is right to have a board so large as 18 members. We all have experience of committees and bodies of various kinds. My experience is that the larger the body, the less the responsibility, or share of responsibility, taken by each individual member of it other than the chairman. Really, 18 seems to me to be far too numerous.
Further, if we are going to have it as a representative body, about which I have some doubt, we can perfectly well get it within the Minister's number of 14; that is to say, we would have two appointed by the Minister; two from local authorities, or it might be three; two from the environment—and there should be two. But then for the promotion of leisure, etc., I think we could well have only one. I do not think that that is as important as the environment or the interests of consumers. Let the interests of consumers have two; people with experience of the industry, two; employees, two. All that adds up to 14, which is what the Government propose as a maximum. Therefore, the Government can have their cake and eat it. To go to 18 is quite excessive.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am surprised that my noble friend, whom I usually find so sound in the advice he gives to us, seems to be accepting the principle behind the amendment.
Lord Renton: Would my noble friend allow me? I cannot have made myself plain. I said that I had grave doubts as to whether we should have a representative body, but if we had to then we could perfectly well achieve it within the Government's 14.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: That is a little better. However, it is inconceivable to me that the National Rivers Authority, which is going to have the power that this body is going to have, should in a way be subservient to somebody outside who appointed it. If, for example, one-quarter had to be persons nominated by the local authority associations, the knowledge that it is the local authority associations which have asked them to sit in this sort of judicial capacity will mean that there is a partiality towards the people who appointed them. You cannot avoid that.
It is a similar situation with the promotion of leisure: "It is the promotion of leisure. Therefore, I

71
have to concentrate on the promotion of leisure". It is like saying that the bench of magistrates should be appointed by the local licensed victualler's association because they do a fair amount of business in the courts; or that the chamber of trade should be the ones who say who should be the magistrates.
When people are appointed members of this board, while I hope that some of them will come from some of the sources outlined in the amendment, that some of them will be from local authorities and some will be people known to be interested in leisure and things of that sort, the appointments should be because overall they can be judicial, they can be impartial, and they are sensible. The Government's way of appointing them covers just that. They want them to take into account all the ingredients that will have to be covered. But to say that appointments are going to be in the hands of these outside bodies is wrong, as they may well be at some time in conflict with the National Rivers Authority.
I can well see the local authority associations having a number of punch-ups with the National Rivers Authority. If a quarter of the members have been appointed by them, what sort of judicial impartiality are you going to get there? While I prefer the amended version of what my noble friend said—although he did not go really far enough—on commonsense grounds, if you want the National Rivers Authority to do the job that this Bill envisages, this amendment in principle must not be considered for one second.
Lord Trafford: I wonder whether it would be possible to put to the mover of the amendment the point that it is certainly appropriate to have a representative committee, which is really what he is talking about, for certain functions. But—and I feel that he did not answer this question—is it appropriate for this type of function? I have nothing against having local authority representatives on this body or the others, but I have some experience of running committees that are supposed to be independent of any particular interest.
What my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said is quite right. When you get specifically appointed members of representative interests, then naturally they follow those interests. That is what they are there for, and that is what you expect them to do. As I understand it, this is not a body where you want that type of thing to happen.
Looking around the Committee at the moment I do not think that there is anybody present who served with me on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill. I apologise; I see that somebody is present. It may be of some point to say that one of the great problems at that time was that nothing had happened for so long because of the conflict of interest in representation between many of the bodies of the type that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to. One would not want this type of situation to arise on the National Rivers Authority.
These would be my objections to this amendment. It is nothing to do with the quality of the person. It is nothing to do—as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of
72
Newport, was talking about—with making environmentalists and all the rest happy. There may well be a place and function for them to perform, but I query, bearing in mind the type of function that you require this body to perform and the type of people you want to have performing it, whether this is the proper committee.
I am not against the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned. I am not against local authority representation on committees on principle. What I am against is setting up at this stage on the face of the Bill what could well be the totally wrong committee to operate this particular function.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am surprised that there should be such opposition to this small, mild amendment. One would imagine, to hear the opponents of the amendment, that local authorities had never been involved in river conservation, or indeed, judging by the Second Reading debate, that local authorities had never been involved in the supply and distribution of water.
The local authorities have been managing rivers since 1973 and managing water supplies and water distribution over many years. They have done it very successfully indeed. I was a member of a water committee and helped to set up the Reading and Berkshire water authority which ran the water industry in that area with considerable success. It had to run it with considerable success because the people who were responsible were members of the local authority and were liable to be elected or not elected depending on the job they did for the people in the locality. Therefore, when we look at the river boards and the local authority water undertakings we see that they have been run very successfully on behalf of local people.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that in my experience they were run very well on behalf of the local people. Indeed, the Thames Conservancy, which included many local authority representatives, looked after the Thames very successfully and brought about many improvements to that river. It started the clean-up of that river.
Therefore when Members opposite suggest that local authority elected representatives cannot do the job and are not necessary, I think they are barking up the wrong tree. Noble Lords opposite shake their heads but their speeches made it quite clear that they do not believe that local authority representation has any future in relation to this Bill and in particular in relation to this clause. I believe that they are very much mistaken. There is and should be a continuing role for local authorities in river management and in the supply of water. I know that that is not what this Bill is about; it is about the very reverse. At least I believe that at this stage of the Bill the value of local authority representation on the rivers authority, and at later stages on other authorities, should be considered. I support my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Lord sits down I think that it is worth making one point for the sake of the record. The noble Lord referred to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell: for the record, my noble friend is not in the Chamber.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that I once owned a factory. Everyone was very happy there. I suggested to one of the workers on the shopfloor, who was extremely popular with all the other men, that he might like to sit on the board. He said that he would and I put him on the board. He came to me about four or five weeks afterwards and said that he would like to resign. I asked him why and he said, "Hardly any of the workers on the shopfloor will now speak to me". Therefore I think that one has to be very careful when appointing people who have no relevant experience.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is very important to appreciate what kind of body this will be. It is to be a pragmatic body which has a set of objectives and duties which it has to fulfil. It has to concentrate on those duties and act as efficiently, promptly and effectively as possible. It should certainly consist of people who understand the subject. I believe that Clause 1(4) ensures that the people who are appointed will have relevant experience and will have a track record in those matters.
As my noble friend Lord Trafford said, anyone who has had experience of running that kind of body will know that, in a body whose representatives have been nominated by various interest groups, much of the time is spent discussing their conflicting interests and every decision tends to be a compromise. It is a perfectly good body, and I have been chairman of such a body. I have also been chairman of the other kind of body. The type of body depends on the task. This particular body has a very clear task which is set out in the Bill. The authority has to get on with that task. It seems to be that the right way to approach that kind of body is in the way that is proposed in the Bill.
As to the involvement of local authorities, they will be enormously involved. They are involved in environmental protection, planning and roads and in very many aspects of what the body will discuss. They will be consulted constantly, as doubtless will the various environmental interest groups and the like. I do not think that local authorities should feel that this is a deliberate attempt to exclude them from the management of water which they undertook some time ago. It is simply that this body has a particular response and is designed for that and no other purpose.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The main purpose of these amendments is to require consultation with environmental, local authority and other interests before appointments are made to the NRA and to provide additional members on the board of the NRA to represent particular interests.
Amendment No. 5 proposes that the NRA board should have 14 to 18 members, of whom two would be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and the remainder by the Secretary of State: one quarter from nominations by local authority associations, one quarter from nominations by environmental, recreational or consumer organisations, one quarter from people with relevant knowledge or expertise
74
and one quarter from nominations by employee organisations in the water industry.
Amendment No. 6 would require the Secretary of State before making board appointments, to consult individuals and organisations representative of local authorities. Amendment No. 7 would delete the requirement on the Secretary of State or Minister to have regard to the desirability of appointing to the board people who have relevant experience.
The Government's intentions for the NRA, as a non-departmental public body with members appointed by Ministers, were set out in the policy document on the NRA published in December 1987. We made clear in that policy document that board members of the NRA would be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and two members would be specifically appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and one by the Secretary of State for Wales. We also made clear the the intention will be to appoint members with knowledge relevant to the functions of the NRA.
These policy proposals are carried forward into the Bill in Clause 1, with one small change. In December 1987, we said that the board should have up to 12 members. In the Bill we have allowed for a board of up to 15 members. This is not because we necessarily want as many as 15 members on the NRA board but because we recognise that the range of interests that need to be represented on the NRA may require a board of more than 12 and that a statutory maximum of 15 would be more appropriate. A board of this size will ensure that the NRA has the stature appropriate to a major national body, provided its members have relevant expertise and are able to command respect among all those who depend either for their livelihood or their recreation on our river system.
What these amendments propose is that there should be a formal consultation with all those who might wish to nominate members of the NRA. This is something we would strongly oppose. It would have the effect that when members were appointed to the NRA they would necessarily feel that they were there to represent a specific interest. This is not what we intend at all. Our aim is to have a small effective board where all members feel that they are able to speak and take an interest in all matters that will affect the NRA. Although individual members may have a particular expertise we should certainly not want them to feel that they were mandated to represent a particular interest. If the board of the NRA is to work as a team, all members must take a broader interest than any specific expertise or background that may have led to their appointment to the board. Any formal consultation with outside bodies would be incompatible with the sort of team work that we consider will be needed from the board of the NRA.
I must also say that we would be opposed to the suggestion that interested organisations should make direct appointments to the board. That would be quite inappropriate for a major national non-departmental public body which must be accountable through Ministers to Parliament. That accountability to Parliament through Ministers

75
would be seriously jeopardised if outside bodies were able to make appointments direct to the board of the NRA.
In closing, I should say that, in the light of the arguments deployed which resulted in the last Division, I was slightly surprised by sub-paragraph (iv), which refers to a proposal that one quarter of the persons appointed shall be
"nominated by organisations representative of employees of water or sewerage undertakers".
I hope that noble Lords will feel unable to accept these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am deeply disappointed with both the response of the Minister and with the remarks made from behind him. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, considers that a body with major decisions to make, which comprised 18 members, would be unwieldly and unable to agree. I see that the Cabinet numbers 22 members; I imagine that it would have some difficulty in coming to its decisions unless a certain person in the Cabinet room appointed the people who sit around the table. I believe that that happens in the Cabinet room.
In this case, there will be a body of up to 15 people who will have been appointed by one man—the Minister or the Secretary of State. Their reappointment will depend on the manner in which they satisfy the Secretary of State. The Minister says that it is preferable to be accountable to the Secretary of State than to the local authorities or to the employees. That is a concept that we on this side of the House totally reject, although the Government and the Minister have made no bones about it. The Secretary of State says—this applies particularly to sub-paragraph (iv)—that he wants the people who will sit on that non-departmental government body (in other words, the men and women who will be chosen by him) to be vetted in the light of what he considers to be the appropriateness of their ability to serve.
That is one point of view. We happen to believe that managing the nation's water calls for something different. The Minister tries to tell the House that the management of water is no different from the management of fish, shoes or plastics. However, we believe that it is different. We believe that the case for looking at the management, control and accountability to the public of water is different. We are giving the Minister the means to bring that about. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that we may have the numbers wrong. I believe that I heard him say that he did not agree with the concept but, if there was to be representation, it might be in a different form.
I had hoped that the Minister might say to the House that he was prepared to look at the amendment, take it away and come back. However, quite frankly, his concept of the kind of body about which we are talking and of how such a body should be set up and the belief that it should be wholly in his gift and not accountable to the people is incompatible with our concept. That is where we
76
part company. I intend to press the amendment to a Division.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 111.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Airedale, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ardwick, L.

McNair, L.

Barnett, L.

Monson, L.

Birk, B.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Donoughue, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Shepherd, L.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Galpern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Walston, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lockwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Goold, L.

Alport, L.

Greenway, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Bathurst, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Beloff, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Belstead, L.

Marylebone, L.

Blatch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Bolton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Havers, L.

Brain, L.

Henley, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hesketh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Caithness, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Joseph, L.

Carnock, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Knutsford, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Layton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Long, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Marley, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Ferrers, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Fortescue, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Mersey, V.

77

Middleton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Savile, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Selborne, E.

Moran, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mottistone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Mountevans, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Munster, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinton, E.

Norrie, L.

Teviot, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Onslow, E.

Trafford, L.

Orkney, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Truro, Bp.

Radnor, E.

Tryon, L.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Rochdale, V.

Wigram, L.

Romney, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Wynford, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Young, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.32 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran: I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we do not return to the Committee stage of the Bill before 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989
7.33 p.m.
Lord Pesten Lord Pesten rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 309] be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, let me start by saying that in praying against this order I am simply using it as a procedural device in order to discuss the science curriculum. On this occasion I am not proposing to divide your Lordships' House on this matter although I may when we come to discuss other such orders feel that that would be an appropriate way to proceed.
It seems to me that, given the Education Bill that became the Education Act and given that such orders
78
become the way in which we move on the question of the curriculum, it would be a great pity if your Lordships did not take this opportunity—indeed I regard it as an historic opportunity—to discuss the national curriculum and in this case the curriculum in science. Let me add that I believe—and I approach this matter in as constructive a spirit as I possibly can—that it is right for Ministers to be involved in the curriculum and it is right for Members of Parliament, not least your Lordships, to be in a position to debate the curriculum. As I understand it, this is the first time in recent history that that has been possible.
Whatever criticisms that I and my colleagues and noble friends have made of the Education Bill, they certainly did not extend to saying that discussion of the curriculum itself was inappropriate. Also, if noble Lords will reflect on our great debates on these matters, they will remember that we argued about the core curriculum, what ought to be in it and such matters. I remain convinced in my original view that the narrow core was the correct approach, leaving more flexibility for other subjects. But that is not a matter that need concern us at the present time because we all agreed that science should be in the core.
Let me, parenthetically, make another series of remarks. I have chosen not to pray also against the education order that deals with mathematics. In choosing to make that decision I must tell noble Lords that the reason very simply was not to overdo matters at this stage. There is a limit to your Lordships' patience, important though these subjects are. But I do not want noble Lords to believe that in not discussing the mathematics order I regard that in some way or other as less important. Indeed, my view would probably be to regard the mathematics curriculum as underlying everything on the science side and certainly therefore of at least equal importance. But except for one or two comments about standards that I shall make in a moment, I do not find a great deal with which to disagree at this stage in the mathematics curriculum.
Overall it looks to me to be a rather good curriculum in the broad sense. I think that it can be criticised and I shall make one or two criticisms in a moment, but on the whole I must admit that I tend to welcome it. However, let me make those criticisms en passant. To some extent—and this is not irrelevant to the science curriculum—it has to do with standards.
It seems to me that in considering mathematics we must take fundamental analysis and basic ideas very seriously and not view mathematics, as many ignorant people do, as simply a matter of calculation. One often hears it said that if one cannot do long division in one's head, then somehow one is not a mathematician. There is nothing more absurd. I know many people who can do long division in their head but do not have the faintest idea of what they are doing and cannot possibly explain why what they are doing is correct.
What matters in mathematics is the fundamental side. What worries me a little about the mathematics order is that there are one or two fundamental

79
aspects of mathematics that seem to have been left out. I just mention them to draw them to your Lordships' attention. Of the two that most concern me, one is that there is a reference to vector notation but no reference at all to matrices. Yet I am quite clear from the time that my own children did mathematics, both in primary and secondary school, that they actually did matrix algebra, which, despite the tough sounding name, is quite an easy subject and rather important. I am a little disappointed that that has been left out.
I am also a trifle disappointed—unless I have misread the document, and that is always possible —that calculus does not seem to be included in the mathematics order. Again I find that rather surprising.
On the more practical side of mathematics—and again this relates to the science curriculum—I believe that the mathematics order has rather less of a statistical nature in it than I should have liked to see. Since I regard maths as the vital entrée to the science side, I am a little worried about the lack of concern with statistical matters in the mathematics curriculum.
Let me turn to the science curriculum itself. I should like to emphasise three matters. First, overall, I believe that it is rather good. Many noble Lords may agree that, if all of us knew as much science as is laid down by this order, we should know more than we currently know and might be more useful in our society than perhaps must of us are. I am not saying that it is all wholly appalling; it is rather good.
My concern is whether the order lays down a high enough standard. Here I must reveal my ignorance or lack of understanding about the nature of the national curriculum. This may give the noble Viscount an opportunity to clarify the matter when he replies. A range of achievement is possible within the science curriculum. Not everyone achieves the same standard. What is not clear to me is whether schools which wish to cover more than is laid down in the national curriculum will be in a position to do so. My worry is whether, although for a great number of pupils this will be a very good curriculum—and I have one or two remarks to make on that—for those who are particularly good at science it will attain the highest, rather than high, standards. I should like the noble Viscount to tell us the thinking of the DES on teaching more rather than less.
Secondly, when considering the detail of the science curriculum I am a little mystified whether it is theoretical enough. All my biases in my academic career have been rather more on the theoretical than on the applied side. I freely admit that I have such biases. However, even on the applied side my experience has been that one cannot apply matters properly unless one knows enough theory to understand what one is doing. As the curriculum is laid down, this matter is not obvious to me. I ask this interrogatively. Is enough theory included? I ask that question again at two levels. Is enough theory included for most ordinary pupils working in this area so that they understand what they are doing on
80
method and application? I hope that I shall not be accused of intellectual snobbery when I also ask this question of the noble Viscount. Will the national curriculum provide a sufficiently rigorous foundation, in particular at the theoretical level, for more advanced work?
On the question of whether there will be enough mathematics to feed into the science curriculum, I go back to my point about statistics. I am delighted to see genetics in the national curriculum for science. Will the young people be taught enough statistics to understand what happens in genetics and in particular the theory? That is my first set of questions. I put them forward in a constructive manner. I do not regard such questions as remotely political. They are argumentative certainly, but that is another matter altogether. I shall welcome the view of the noble Viscount on these points.
I now come to the second matter that has been discussed widely in the education press and was debated in the other place only the other day. It concerns the smaller or narrower science course. I ask this question genuinely and not provocatively. Why has the smaller science course been introduced? One reason may be because Ministers and their advisers genuinely believed on education grounds that for a significant number of young people this was the appropriate course. If that is their view I should like to hear more argument on it.
Perhaps I may hark back to our debates on the Bill. When we were arguing about flexibility, some noble Lords considered that there might be such narrower courses. Then the Government steadfastly rejected all those arguments. In the case of the science curriculum how has this narrower curriculum arisen on education grounds, if it has? I am well aware that there is another argument here, though it is not the reason for my main inquiry this evening. Cynics have put forward the view that all the Government are doing is recognising the shortage of teachers and other resources and that they have introduced this curriculum because they know that they could not possibly provide all the teaching and other resource inputs required for the overall science curriculum. At the very least the noble Viscount ought to answer that accusation. I do not necessarily make it myself but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
It was not my intention to introduce this discussion simply as an entrée yet again to a great row about teacher shortages. However, I am now extremely confused about the position of the DES on teacher shortages. The department has certainly made a number of public statements that it recognises that there is shortage of science teachers. It is not pretending that there is not. Although we can argue about how much the Government are doing to remove the shortage, it will persist for quite a while. First, can the noble Viscount tell us more on that subject? Secondly, what will happen if the teachers are not available? What will happen to the science curriculum? I do not see how a curriculum as good as this—and I repeat that point—can be taught by people who are not themselves properly educated in science. One cannot simply wander in, pick up a book and say, "Turn to page such and

81
such, and we shall deal with this following problem in mutation on genetics". One either knows the subject oneself or one cannot teach it. I therefore have to ask the question: what will happen if the teachers are not available?
Wearing my normal economist's hat, I have to ask a more general question on resources. Do we know that the laboratories are there for science in all these schools? Do we know that the text books are there? I should not refer simply to text books. Do we know that up-to-date text books are available? Those who have been involved in teaching are well aware that not giving every child a book of his own is a very bad practice. The notion that children can share books is preposterous, as anyone who has any experience of teaching knows. Giving them out-of-date books is even more absurd. In science, of all subjects, resources must be available.
I argued this point when we discussed the Bill. I welcome the Secretary of State taking responsibility to some degree for the curriculum. I still welcome it. However, when the Secretary of State takes such responsibility he also has to take responsibility on the resource side. He cannot say, "I am concerned with the curriculum but then I wash my hands on whether the means are there to achieve it."
I hope very much that the shorter scientific curriculum does not turn out in practice simply to be directed at women rather than men. One of the greatest wastes in our society is the limited extent to which women have involved themselves in science although I see no evidence that women are intrinsically less able to do science than men. We must go to enormous lengths to try to eradicate any such sexual bias, if I may put it that way, in science. Whatever the case for the narrower or shorter course, we must see that it suddenly does not end up much more as an easy biology course with little hard physics for women. I hope that there will be total agreement from the Government on that.
I remind the noble Viscount that one important professional body, namely the Royal Society of Chemistry, has expressed deep concern about the narrower curriculum. It does not like it. I assume that it dislikes it particularly because it may be damaging to chemistry, a subject in which our country has had enormous achievements over the years. It is one of the subjects in which we remain of world class. We can consider ourselves with great confidence as major achievers. My view is not necessarily that the Royal Society of Chemistry is completely right in what it says; however, when it expresses a worry, it seems to me that the Secretary of State has a duty to respond. He has a duty to say to such an important professional body that, first, its worries are taken seriously and, secondly, if the Government think its views wrong, to explain why. For the moment, if they are not sure whether the society is wrong, the Government are open to further argument. I hope to hear something from the noble Viscount on that.
I have one last point on procedure. I am sorry to have gone on for so long. On so interesting a matter, it illustrates how long I could continue if given the opportunity. Once it is agreed, I understand that this document will become the national curriculum in
82
science. I have two concerns. First, let us suppose that during a debate such as this, one or other noble Member by some miracle makes quite a good point about the curriculum. Perhaps, taking the example of my maths point, what I said about matrix algebra may be correct. One worry—the counterside to our ability to discuss the matter—is that it is not obvious how the curriculum may be modified. How can anything happen in practice?
That relates to a further question. Let us suppose that more generally, not noble Lords, but the education world, through experiments, discovers that the curriculum ought to be changed. Is there any way in which the curriculum can be appropriately modified? So far as I can see, the Secretary of State, again with an order, will have to modify the curriculum. I welcome our chance for a debate, but I am worried about possible inflexibility. The Secretary of State may have to consider what happens in other areas such as a permanent review of the curriculum and a statement to another place and to your Lordships' House on the state of the curriculum and possible changes.
However, I do not wish to conclude on a negative note. If we are lucky and the resources are there, the result of the national curriculum will be that more science will be studied successfully by more pupils than ever before. If that happens I reiterate the point: I for one will strongly welcome it.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989 [S.I. 1989 No. 309] be annulled.—[Lord Peston.]
7.53 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for putting down this Prayer and for giving us an opportunity to debate matters which seriously need parliamentary scrutiny. I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord said, including that the academic part of these matters should not be regarded as issues for party debate. I was also interested and pleased to hear the noble Lord consider the possibility that at some future date on such an occasion the House might divide. Let me hasten to reassure noble Lords opposite that I recognise that dividing the House during the dinner break is a gastronomic crime and should be undertaken, if at all, only to avoid a much graver political crime. That possibility somewhere should exist as a vital part of parliamentary sovereignty, and I should be sorry to see it disappear.
I agreed with the phrase that the noble Lord used that the curriculum as set out is rather good. It was a pleasure to read. It was well written; it was lively; and it was simple. It stimulated intellectual curiosity, which is one of the best things I can say about it. I found myself, interestingly, reacting as a parent, remembering a great many wet Saturday afternoons at the Science Museum. I am slightly more happy than the noble Lord about the balance between theory and practice. The words "understand" and "know" seem to me to be coming with considerable frequency.

83
However, one or two worries are worth mentioning. Science changes. Nowadays it tends to change very rapidly indeed. These attainment tests suppose that certain scientific facts, as we now think they are, will continue to be thought true. To satisfy the attainment targets it will be necessary to appear to know these facts. We might find that one of them proved to be false tomorrow. I know it is always a problem keeping a school curriculum up to date. I know also that the National Curriculum Council has a power of review. But, as the noble Lord said, it is a somewhat cumbrous process. It will be a little like turning a tanker. I wonder whether there may be an effect here of ossifying error.
Something else about which I am anxious is the amount of content. Science has a tendency to grow. My tutor, John Roberts, remarked in his History of the World that at any time since 1500 there have been more scientists alive than dead. It is a lot easier to put subjects into a curriculum than to take them out. The body of knowledge required is heavy. I wonder whether, with the increase in known science, it may be heavier. It may indeed become too heavy. That is a problem to which I do not pretend to have an answer. However, I should like to flag it for attention.
When this matter was raised in another place, some people were deeply concerned about the two-tier curriculum; mode A and mode B. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was slightly less concerned about that. On these Benches we are well aware, and have reiterated many times, that children differ. The word we uttered many times during our proceedings on the Education Reform Bill was "flexibility". It seems to me that this two-tier suggestion allows some flexibility. Indeed I wondered at moments whether it owed something to the amendment so amply supported from the Cross-Benches and elsewhere of my noble friend Lord McNair on the teaching of languages. It gave me a faint hope, a wild surmise, that just possibly some thinking about the content of that amendment may have gone on since it was discussed in this House. I look forward to the curriculum order on languages with a good deal of interest.
Granted this generally optimistic greeting of the contents, I have misgivings about the implementation. One is the pace of reorganisation in schools. One of my noble friends, who is unfortunately not able to be here today, has drawn attention to the fact that in his school all the targets of attainment in the programmes of study did not arrive until just before the Easter vacation. The school is in the middle of introducing TVEI and also in the course of a reorganisation involving a merger with another school. A considerable amount of dislocation is involved. When so many things are changing at once at this pace one wonders whether all will be done properly. One wonders whether good ideas might have been brought forward if there had been slightly less unseemly haste. I am also deeply worried about resources on which I want to dwell more than the noble Lord has. I am glad that the noble Lord said that this is not solely a question of teachers. My honourable friends in another place
84
have estimated the cost of laboratory resources to enable schools to teach the national curriculum at £50,000 per school. I do not see where that money is coming from. I am also glad that the noble Lord said what he did about books. The point cannot be repeated too often, but the teacher problem is at the bottom of it.
In a parliamentary Answer given on 19th April, Mr. Butcher gave a figure of 36,640 for the net loss of teachers in all subjects since 1984. That is a gross loss of 43,120. For science, he gave a figure for gross loss of 8,540. He did not give a figure for net loss so I cannot quote it. One imagines that it would be roughly in proportion.
I share the anxieties about whether a truly intellectually demanding curriculum—and I am glad that it is such—can be taught by people without the proper qualifications. I know that the Secretary of State is optimistic—he usually is. He quotes figures about entrants to teacher training which I too am glad to see. But they are figures before such people have encountered their first mortgage, before the birth of their first child, before the pressures or re-organisation and before most of the issues which are deterring people from the profession are encountered. They are not the figures that we need to be looking at. Not only do we need to be getting people to enter teacher training but we need to be getting them to stay there.
I wonder whether blaming the unions for teacher discontent has been a case of shooting the messenger. I wonder whether now, with the messenger shot, we are seeing how the message is delivered. It is important because, if the situation is not put right, the national curriculum, which I should welcome, simply will not happen. It is coming in without visible means of support, with the DES in its familiar guise of following the policy of doing without braces. We have criticised the DES in the past for its indifference to dead languages. It has, however, a great affection for dead letters: I wish it would put it the other way round.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for giving the House the opportunity of discussing the order, which, along with the parallel order on mathematics, sets out the first of the full national curriculum requirements to be introduced under the Education Reform Act 1988. I am also grateful for his assurance that his purpose in raising the subject tonight is to express his concern and thoughts on the contents and balance of the proposed curriculum and that his aim is to be constructive.
There is widespread support for the principle of the national curriculum and I am aware of the real and widespread concern to improve standards in our schools and to support the national curriculum in its role in the improvement of standards. But before starting my speech I should like to make two points. First, I must say a word of thanks to members of the Science Working Group, who put a great deal of skill, experience and time into the deliberations which eventually resulted in the documents which we have before us. Secondly, I believe that in a debate of this

85
nature it will be more constructive if I answer some of the noble Lords' questions in a considered letter after studying the Official Report rather than attempting to answer off the top of my head. However, that does not mean that I shall not try to answer most of the points. It means that my speech will be slightly longer than I had intended but I hope that that will show that the Government are taking the debate very seriously.
Many people have concerns when radical change is envisaged and it is right that those concerns are expressed. I hope that I shall be able to put at rest most of those anxieties. I believe that in some cases they arise as a result of thinking up hypothetical situations.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the purpose of the order we are debating. It specifies the attainment targets, arranged in 10 successive levels of attainment, and the programmes of study to support them, covering the four key stages of compulsory schooling from age 5 to 16. These are to be phased in progressively, starting this autumn. The first unreported trial run of assessements will be made in 1991, for 7-year old pupils then reaching the end of the first key stage. The following year, 1992, will see the first fully reported assessments for the next cohort of pupils reaching the end of the first key stage then at age 7. The assessment arrangements will be the subject of a separate order. The present order concerns the attainment targets and programmes of study alone.
There has been some criticism of the consultation process. Work on the national curriculum has been intensive but consultation has been an important part of the process at each stage. The Science Working Group produced its interim report in November 1987 and this was used as the basis of consulting a large number of organisations and individuals. Then the working group produced its final report on 30th June 1988. The Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales then commented on the report and published it with the Government's proposals. In England the National Curriculum Council and in Wales the Welsh Office sent these out for consultation. After due consideration the NCC submitted recommendations in November 1988 which were accepted by the Secretaries of State. The draft orders were published in December for a further round of consultation before being laid before Parliament in March. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that there has been a long series of consultations.
It has been suggested that future orders for other curriculum subjects ought to be debated at draft stage. There is ample opportunity for noble Lords, as for any other interested party, to submit written comments on the working party reports, the Secretary of State's proposals and the draft orders. Two debates on each order might seem a little excessive.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Peston, agreed that we are not debating the mathematics curriculum he asked a question about it. In the same spirit I shall answer that question. He regretted the omission of matrix work, calculus and statistics from the national curriculum order. Without necessarily accepting the
86
detail of his critism, I point out that the content of the order reflects the extensive two-stage public consultations which took place on the maths proposals. But the Government and the National Curriculum Council will monitor the national curriculum in practice and keep under review the possible need for any changes, including additions in the light of experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, questioned whether schools wishing to offer pupils more than the national curriculum requirements in science will be allowed to do so. The short answer is yes. Provided that the schools fulfil all the national curriculum requirements and comply with a general duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, they are free to teach whatever else they may wish in addition. Secondly, as regards whether the theoretical balance is right for both average and more able pupils, the Government believe that in the light of the extensive consultations that it is. But as I have already said in the case of maths, it will be kept under review and can be amended in future in the light of experience.
In a broader reply and confirming what I have just said—and this answers a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—the National Curriculum Council is responsible for keeping the national curriculum under review and advising the Secretary of State on the need for any changes in the light of experience. Her Majesty's Inspectorate will also be monitoring schools' experience and so will the Department of Education and Science. That will include observations sent to the department from all sources. The provisions contained in the order and the associated documents will be updated and revised as necessary in the light of experience. I hope that that will be a relief to the two noble Lords who have spoken.
Before turning to the issue of the so-called "12.5 per cent." option, it is important to emphasise the great advance that the national curriculum represents in the teaching of science in this country. Right through to the age of 16 children will not be allowed to drop subjects—either the core subjects or the other foundation subjects. At present, for example, many girls drop physics at an early age and many boys drop biology. Something like 5 per cent. of pupils in year five at secondary school take no science at all. This picture will be completely changed by the national curriculum, and will be changed for the minority doing the 12.5 per cent. option in the final two years of compulsory schooling as well as the majority doing the 20 per cent. option. In both cases, the national curriculum will ensure the study of a balanced science curriculum for all pupils up to the age of 16.
I am well aware of the argument that all children in our schools should take double science to GCSE certificate at 16. This would take up something like 20 per cent. of school time for all pupils covering all 17 attainment targets in the science curriculum. This was what the Science Working Group recommended, but the Secretaries of State were mindful of concern that there should be a statutory recognition of the need for flexibility; for example, in the case of a minority of pupils needing more time for the study of foreign languages or music. I may say that I recall

87
the noble Lord's own concern for flexibility during debate on the Education Reform Bill. He asked:
"What about flexibility? What of the suggestions that the national curriculum might impose too tight a straitjacket?"
The National Curriculum Council gave a great deal of attention to the science option question during the consultation period on the Government's proposals following the working group's report. The council recognised the need to balance the advantages of the full course of 17 attainment targets against the flexibility which some pupils will need within their whole curriculum. As a result, the NCC recommended that there should be an alternative course with fewer atttainment targets but still a balanced science programme and with an intellectual challenge matching that of the full course of study. The NCC's decision to make this recommendation was its own independent decision. The Secretary of State agreed with the recommendation.
I should make it clear that the Secretaries of State expect most pupils will study science for 20 per cent. of their time. There is, and will continue to be, a strong recommendation to all schools that they should offer a double science programme to all their pupils, and should encourage as many as possible of them to take it up. And I would remind noble Lords that the 12.5 per cent. single science option itself represents a tremendous advance on what happens at present. A very large number of our children do not study a balanced science curriculum in the final two years of compulsory schooling. They are now going to have to take such a programme for at least some 12.5 per cent. of their time.
I should add that Her Majesty's Inspectorate gives strong support to the view that the 12.5 per cent. option represents a worthwhile study of science. It is broad in scope and, as the noble Earl said, intellectually challenging.
I shall say a word about the specific concern expressed by the noble Lord Peston, that girls in particular will opt for the 12.5 per cent. programme and that this will unnecessarily reduce the chances of the country meeting its need for highly qualified manpower. By the time the children educated throughout under the national curriculum make a choice on this option they will have had nine years schooling in science. There is every reason to believe that they will be well informed in the choice that they make. I can give an assurance, however, that the take-up of each option by gender will be carefully monitored.
I will now deal with the specific question of the relationship of the 20 per cent. and 12.5 per cent. programmes of study to taking A-levels.
A-levels are already evolving to meet new needs, including the needs of GCSE holders. GCSE double-award science is well adapted for progression to A-level in a range of science subjects. The 20 per cent. option in the national curriculum will be similarly well adapted. It is expected, for example, that a pupil will be able to go on to take any or indeed all of physics, chemistry and biology at A-level if that is what is wanted.
The Government accept that the 12·5 per cent. option will not provide the same breadth of
88
knowledge and understanding as the 20 per cent. option. At the same time, I would emphasise that the course of study for the 12·5 per cent. option has been prepared in such a way as to ensure that it does not close the door to science study post-16. The National Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Council for Wales suggested that a short bridging course in the chosen subject or subjects may be necessary in such cases before A-level studies begin.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, expressed concern at the neglect of physics in the 12·5 per cent. option. With energy, physics accounts for four of the nine knowledge and understanding attainment targets. Those are forces, electricity and magnetism, energy, and sound and music. Of the other disciplines, chemistry has two attainment targets, biology two and earth science one. That is a balanced programme of study.
Turning to the profile components, the Government fully appreciate the importance of teaching pupils how to take advantage of the knowledge and skills they acquire in practical tasks and real life situations. The reduction in the number of profile components from four to two has not reduced the emphasis on practical work. It has sought to make more clear the relationship of practical tasks to the knowledge which has to be applied. The attainment target for exploration of science stands on its own as a separate profile component. It was developed to reflect a progression in the abilities to plan, carry out, interpret results, draw inferences and communicate.
I turn now to the question of teacher shortages in science subjects raised by both noble Lords. Noble Lords may recall that we had a fairly full debate on this subject on 8th March. I do not therefore propose to repeat here an account of all the action taken by the Government to combat teacher shortages. Suffice it to say that the Government are not only well aware of the problems but have taken and are taking vigorous action to deal with the problems. Indeed, they are meeting with some success.
Measures already taken include the bursary scheme for shortage subjects and grants to LEAs for in-service training. The Teaching As a Career Unit, launched in April 1987, has advertised widely and has met with considerable success. The latest campaign, which ended a few weeks ago, has attracted over 10,000 responses.
Recruitment to initial teacher training in 1988 was a record at 20,180—up by 5 per cent. over 1987. Applications for primary training this year are even better—up by 14 per cent. to date. Between January 1987 and January 1988, there was a marked reduction in vacant posts in shortage subjects in schools: down 48 per cent. in physics, and by 23 per cent. in chemistry.
There is no question of complacency, however. We can do more and intend to do so. The Government will shortly be publishing details of the new proposals for licensed teachers. These will add a new route into teaching and should appeal to well-qualified specialists, who can help to fill vacancies in the scarce subjects and bring to the job a refreshing breath of the outside world. Proposals

89
for articled teachers are under active consideration. These would be people who have taken a degree and who would be taken on by the local education authority, paid as a teacher, and trained on the job for two years.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about resources. Naturally, the Government aim to ensure that the means are available to support the introduction of the national curriculum. Substantial resources are being made available in the current year. Some £130 million is being provided—over £50 million through ESGs, a further £50 million or so through the LEA training grant scheme, and some £23 million for central costs. All of this must be seen against the background of the lowest ever level of pupil teacher ratio of 17 to 1.
Where capital resources are needed, it is for the LEAs to decide to what extent capital allocations and capital receipts should be used for any necessary planning for the national curriculum. Similarly, it is for schools and LEAs to take the needs of the national curriculum into account when making decisions on staffing and spending on support services, books and equipment. Planned spending in 1989–90 on books and equipment is more than than 30 per cent. higher in cash terms than actual spending per pupil in 1986–87.
I cannot remember whether the noble Lord asked this question, but he said he was going to so I shall reply to it. I have a feeling that he forgot, but I believe that it is an important question and one which I should like to answer; that is, when the national curriculum requirements for English will be published. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to publish the final order for English in key stage one, infant schooling, around the end of May. Implementation will begin in schools this autumn. For the later stages of primary and secondary school English, he hopes to publish his proposals together with the English working group's report by July as a basis for consultation. That should lead in due course to the making of final orders early in 1990 for the introduction in schools in autumn 1990.
By way of summing up this short debate, I point to the very positive achievement in taking this first step in establishing the national curriculum in our schools. For the first time ever this will provide clear and agreed standards to work to and by which to measure pupil's educational progress. It will furnish a means by which teachers, pupils and parents can all know what is expected and what to aim for.
Whatever the differences on points of detail, I am sure that we can all accept that this is a major advance in the universal aim of improving the standard of education in our country.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may utter a few words of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for taking part in this debate. I felt that his contribution was particularly helpful and he covered certain matters which I omitted. Perhaps I may also offer an apology. It was remiss of me not to join with the noble Viscount in thanking the Science Working
90
Group and all others who have taken part for the great work which they have done. Therefore, may I associate myself with that?
Perhaps I may lastly thank the noble Viscount for his reply to this debate and doubly thank him for his courtesy in answering a question to which I was very keen to know the answer, even though I forgot to ask it. Indeed, one reason for the question is that I am very keen to debate the issue of the English curriculum when the time comes. With those thanks, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.35 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

("Functions of National Rivers Authority

. —(1) The National Rivers Authority shall prepare, publish and update from time to time, a plan in respect of the matters identified in subsection (2) below, for the purposes of the effective carrying out of its functions and, in particular, of promoting the cleanliness of water, and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment in relation to rivers.
(2) The functions of the Authority under this Act shall include—

(a) the improvement of the state of cleanliness of waters in England and Wales, including their chemical quality and levels of compliance with notified water quality objectives;

(b) the progressive reduction of discharges of sewage effluents and trade effluents in breach of consent levels and the monitoring of compliance in respect of all such consents;

(c) the prescription of precautions to be taken by specified persons for the prevention of pollution;

(d) the preparation and carrying out of a programme of works and operations to prevent, remedy, or mitigate pollution;

(e) the levying of appropriate charges on persons in respect of discharges and the creation of the pollution for the purposes of penalising such discharges;

(f) the conservation and enhancement of sites of natural beauty or amenity, and the conservation of flora and fauna;

(g) the preservation and promotion of public access to waters in areas of natural beauty or amenity, and their use for recreational purposes;

(h) the conservation, redistribution and augmentation of water resources, and the determination of minimum acceptable river flows;

(i) the general supervision of land drainage and flood protection including the preparation, in consultation with relevant local authorities, of a programme of works on designated main rivers and sea defences, and the publication on an annual basis of any such programme;

(j) the conservation, maintenance, improvement and development of salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries in inland waters and, the provision of resources for advisory committees;

(k) the carrying out of navigation, conservancy and harbour authority functions as determined by this Act.").

The noble Lord said: I like this amendment. It is poetic. The text contains everything that I want to say. I have never seen such a well written amendment in my life, and I have put my name to many.
It is a major defect of the Bill—not so much of drafting but of organisation—that the functions, first, of the National Rivers Authority and, secondly, of the Director General of Water Services are spread thinly and erratically around the text of the Bill rather than being in a sensible place where they can be read and understood by everybody and where there is some sort of coherent kernel to the Government's intention in setting up these two august organisations. Therefore, in this new clause we have set out what we believe to be the functions of the National Rivers Authority.
I do not think there is anything in the amendment with which the Government will necessarily disagree. Many of the points we are making in it can be found in other parts of the Bill, but they are fairly well concealed and I hope that putting them together in one place, as we have in the amendment, will meet with the approval of the Committee and of the Government.
The themes in this amendment to which I want to draw attention are, first, the reference in the second line to a plan and, secondly, the reference throughout the amendment to improvement in the reduction of discharges, enhancement of sites of natural beauty and so on. By saying that there should be a plan we mean that there should be effective management. If a new organisation is to be set up—it is an important new organisation which has the good will of Members of both Houses, from all parties, and it has an enormously important job to do—it ought to have a coherent target, a coherent plan of action. That is what the amendment proposes, but it is sadly lacking in the Government's proposals for the NRA as so far made clear. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not in his place at the moment because I should have thought he would be particularly sympathetic to the idea of a plan of action for, as the amendment says,
"the effective carrying out of its function and… promoting the cleanliness of water, and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment in relation to rivers".
In business we are always told, and I believe rightly, that unless you set yourself a business plan and set targets to work against, it is impossible to know whether you are succeeding. The same applies strongly to the National Rivers Authority. Even if not established in legislation as proposed in the amendment, the NRA should be setting itself a plan for the benefit not only of the authority itself but for its accountability to Ministers and, in turn, the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. It seems to us entirely appropriate that such a plan should be in the Bill. It can be added to and it may be that there is disagreement about particular aspects of it. However, it is something that represents no threat whatever to the Government's basic proposals for the Bill. I believe that it clarifies the function of the National Rivers Authority and its responsibilities. It will make it easier for the public at large to see that here we have a body not only with the intention of
92
conservation and the protection of the environment but with a coherent plan of action for doing so.
The second significant element in this amendment is the continued reference in almost all of the subsections to the improvement of the environment and the standards of conservation rather than simply to the maintenance of them. I do not believe that there can be much doubt that the improvement of conservation is now a real necessity. It appears to have taken the EC directives to have brought it home to many people how far we have fallen behind. I am not saying that in comparison with other European countries, because that is not an interesting comparison for us to make, but in comparison with what we should have been doing over the years. The EC drawing attention to our failure, first, to legislate and then to act on the quality of drinking water is only one example, but a very good one, of how far we have fallen behind what we should have been doing. The quality of our water, rivers and the environment as affected by water is sadly lacking by any standards and by any comparison that we wish to make.
Our intention in this amendment is constantly to refer not to the maintenance of the state of cleanliness of waters but to their improvement; it is not as regards controlling the discharge of sewage and trade effluents but the progressive reduction in the discharge of sewage and trade effluents in breach of consent levels. Our intention is not just the conservation of sites of natural beauty but their enhancement; not simply the preservation of public access to waters and areas of natural beauty but the promotion of public access to such waters. The amendment is not solely aimed at the conservation of water resources but at their augmentation and the determination of minimum acceptable river flows. It is not directed solely to the conservation of salmon, trout, freshwater and eel fisheries but to the improvement and development of those fisheries.
It seems to us that all these factors are the proper concern of the National Rivers Authority. That is the right body to be concerned with them all. This amendment in all its elegance and glory is one that the National Rivers Authority should welcome proudly. It is also one that deserves the support of the Government and this Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: In supporting the amendment perhaps I may say that an amendment of this kind would be of extreme convenience. The difficulty with this type of legislation is that one has to search right through the Bill to find out what are the functions of the various bodies created by the legislation. Unless one peruses the Bill and all its numerous schedules, it is very difficult to form a clear impression of the functions of the NRA. They are simply described at the beginning as setting up regional bodies and that is about all. One has to search much further on to find out what else it does.
Therefore I believe that this amendment will not only be of considerable convenience to all those concerned with the Bill but it will also identify more precisely than is done in the rest of the Bill what are the functions of this very important body. We have all agreed that we are glad to see this body created.

93
It follows from that that we should like to see its functions and responsibilities clearly spelt out.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made clear, this may not be precisely the wording that one would wish to adopt. In that case I hope the Government will say that they are interested in an amendment of this kind and that they will come back with some other wording which will fit in more with their ideas if this wording does not. I hope that they will accept that this amendment will not only be a convenience but that it could add considerable value to this early stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Radnor: I am not in favour of the amendment but I rise to ask a question concerning subsection (2)(c), which states:
"the prescription of precautions to be taken by specified persons for the prevention of pollution".
That seems to indicate that the NRA is to tell people what to do to prevent pollution. That is fine as far as it goes, but what happens if the person who is told does exactly what he is told and the pollution is not cured? Whose fault is it then? It would be quite wrong to prosecute the person who does the work stipulated for him by the NRA. That organisation is presumably the prosecuting agency. Does it prosecute itself or have we returned to the situation where the Bill first started with everything being in one hand, so to speak, which I know the noble Lord dislikes so much?
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The duties of the NRA and the remit for it are well set out in the Bill and in great detail. The idea of having to produce a plan publicly, presumably for the Secretary of State or someone to peruse, is the kind of interference in operational management that I believe we are trying to get away from. To accept the amendment as set out is a recipe for more of what we have at the moment; namely, some kind of external interference in operational management. I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, advocating this way forward. We should be setting the framework within which the NRA will operate, and leave it to manage operationally itself. It will be accountable. The remit for it is set out in great detail in the Bill.
Lord Addington: I am in favour of the list or plan which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to, for the simple reason that it reduces the amount of confusion over what the National Rivers Authority is supposed to do. I do not believe that we have yet defined the purpose of this body other than with a general heading. I believe that something that gives more direction and purpose would be extremely useful. As regards the items themselves, there is no reason why these should be the finite version. There is certainly room for altering them over a period of time. I believe that some kind of plan along these lines would be beneficial.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 11 would require the NRA to prepare and publish at some unspecified time in the future a plan for the carrying out of its functions. Some 11 are mentioned, of
94
which particular importance is attached to the promotion of the cleanliness of waters and the conservation and enhancement of the water environment. This is an amendment that I believe we should not support, not because of the underlying objective but because of the means proposed. If some Members of the Committee cast their minds back 10 years or more, they will doubtless recognise the format of the amendment, for there is a dated quality about its terms. I believe it is pure 1970s, from which I fear some of us have not moved.
There is no sense of time of when it should be done or how long it should take. There is the simple fallacy that to produce a plan is to solve a problem; and above all there is that detachment from the real world of events and of actions. But it would be wrong to focus too closely on the terms of an amendment. They are largely irrelevant. What I readily accept, and what I am sure all of us will accept, is the importance of the issue underlying them—that is the crucial issue of the NRA's effectiveness, of how it will do its job. That is of overriding importance. On that at least I hope that we can agree.
But the answer in this amendment—a plan for everything—is too simple. Surely we recognise that the days of the master plan are past. Planning has become a continuous process. The days of the master blue print, which takes years to produce and is out of date by the time it is finally agreed and published, are gone. Nor would it in any case be appropriate for a body like the NRA. Many of its key functions are those of a regulatory authority responding to applications from others and policing their activities. It must be reactive, able to respond to events, whether they are pollution incidents or flooding emergencies.
What then is needed? And what are we providing in its place? I suggest that there are three requirements. First, the NRA must have clear, coherent and mutually compatible responsibilities; secondly, it must have clear objectives for the protection and enhancement of the water environment, with a definite timescale. Thirdly, it must have all the powers it needs to achieve these objectives. If its role is clear, its objectives properly defined and its powers adequate, then it can be left to get on with the job.
On the first point, we have given the NRA properly related functions—all of those needed for the coherent management of river basins and the water environment generally: water quality and pollution conrol; water resources; drainage and flood defence; and conservation and recreation. We shall discuss all these functions before long. At the same time it will have clear and specific objectives, in terms of water quality set by government to guide its operations. They will be firm and explicit, with timetables and legal obligations attaching to them. They will reflect—and guide—all decisions on both abstractions and discharges, as well as reflecting policies on conservation and recreation. They will be complemented where necessary by minimum acceptable flow requirements, a point which is of importance to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. They will be subject to public consultation and periodic review. They will provide a clear planning framework for the authority.

95
Finally, the authority will have the powers it needs to discharge its functions and achieve its objectives. As examples, perhaps I may refer to two areas on which this proposal particularly focuses. In pollution control the NRA will have wide powers in respect of control of dangerous substances; protection zone powers to protect ground waters; and wider precautionary powers for avoidance of pollution incidents. On conservation, it will have a new power to promote protection and enhancement of landscapes and flora and fauna in the water environment, independently of the exercise of its other functions.
In this way the NRA will be geared to action, not hung up on plans which all too often in the past have been a substitute for action. And to back this up we shall ensure that the authority also has effective corporate planning machinery to monitor performance against objectives and guide the allocation of resources.
It will also be an accountable body. In its annual report, it will report regularly on the performance of its functions and the way in which it achieves objectives and the policies set by government. Clause 146 requires that such reports be laid before Parliament, and they can of course be debated there.
In sum, the Government recognise that the NRA has a major task to perform in helping to achieve our objectives for the water environment. It would not be helped by a traditional blueprint plan, which would soon be irrelevant and outdated. Instead the Bill gives it the essential ingredients for success: compatible functions; clear objectives; and relevant powers. These are what are needed. These are what we must give it. Then we must let it get on with the job as quickly as possible.
Lord Ezra: Leaving aside the first subsection of the amendment to which the noble Earl has a fundamental objection, does he not agree that it would be useful at this early stage to define the functions of the authority even though they are dealt with in greater depth later in the Bill? It is difficult without a detailed perusal of the Bill to find out what the functions of the authority are. They are spread throughout this gargantuan Bill. Would it not be a matter of convenience, whatever wording might be thought of as appropriate, to set out at this early stage the broad functions of the authority?
The Earl of Caithness: I disagree with the noble Lord on this point. The clauses with which we are now dealing say how the NRA is to be set up. Its functions are dealt with comprehensively in Clauses 100 to 146 in Part III of the Bill. To try to condense those into six, eight, 10, 20, 25 or 50 points, as the noble Lord requires at this stage, would be misleading and would not help the position. When we come to discuss Clauses 100 to 146 I hope then to be able to convince the noble Lord that we should leave matters as they are.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to say that the Minister has allowed ideological objections to catch up with him on this occasion. He does not always do that and it is sad to see when it happens. His advisers have formed a view that the word "plan" is ideologically unsound, although he used the words "clear planning framework" with every appearance of approval. The distinction between a "plan" and a "clear planning framework" is not entirely clear. If the world "plan" is ideologically unsound for him he is in a great deal of difficulty.
I am not talking about grand blueprints for the future. I am talking about business plans. Those who have experience of business, or, even worse, have experience of business schools will know that business plans are an essential feature of the way in which we are supposed to run private businesses. And quite right too. It is right that, in addition to the year by year measure of profit which is to be imposed on the new water companies and on any report which the National Rivers Authority may make to the Secretary of State, there should be some framework of objectives. The Minister says that they are included in Clauses 100 to 146. I do not doubt that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, seems to think that they are set out clearly in the Bill, although, having said that, she did not make any attempt to find where they are set out or to set them out clearly herself.
Bills are not solely for internal consumption. Legislation is not solely for internal consumption. Not only should there be conservation and protection of the environment but those who are concerned about conservation and the environment should understand what is being done and why it is being done. It is entirely helpful and not damaging to the Bill to propose that these objectives should be brought together in one place. The National Rivers Authority should see them as a whole, should see the coherence of them, should relate them to each other and should present to the public—its audience and its customers—a coherent view of what it is trying to do.
If the National Rivers Authority and the Government do not set out objectives in the form of a coherent plan, other people will certainly do it for them. The Government have already had this unpleasant experience with European Community directives on the quality of drinking water. Those directives are only the start of the kinds of obligation that will be placed on us by the European Community, by our own law and by the self-defence which our people will put up against incompetence, inefficiency and neglect of our environment and of conservation.
I do not for a moment feel that the Government have made a coherent response to the amendment. It was intended not as a challenge to the Government but as a helpful amendment. I am sorry that they should take it in this way, but, having offered our help, the only thing we can gracefully do is to take it away again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

("Scientific Advisory Council.

.—(1) There shall be established by the Secretary of State a Scientific Advisory Council with a duty to advise the National Rivers Authority on scientific matters related to the functions of the Authority.
(2) The membership of the Scientific Advisory Council shall be determined by the Secretary of State and shall include persons of scientific and professional expertise relevant to the water industry.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I hope that I shall not sin against modesty if I recall that on Second Reading I said:
"I should also like to commend to the Government for consideration that we ought to have a scientific advisory council for the national authority. I imagine one of the members of that board, which should be a commercial board concerned with commercial considerations, should be the head of their technical advisory department; but such departments can easily suffer from in-breeding, and to have an advisory council chaired, if you like, by the technical director of the authority, to sit in judgment on the advice he was being given by his own subordinates would be a very good insurance policy against the organisation as a whole suffering from hardening of the arteries as time wore on and initial enthusiasms were eroded".—[Official Report, 17/4/89; col. 667.]
In moving the amendment which stands in my name, I should like to couple with it Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 due to be called in the course of this evening and speak also to Amendment No. 59 which will not be called until the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I wish to do so because they all breathe the same spirit and what I advocate in the case of one is to be advocated in the case of the others.
I visualise the NRA as probably not being a very large body. It would probably neither wish, nor be able, to be the principal forum in which matters of a detailed scientific nature are discussed. We want that body to be one of tough driving executives which will thrust forward and provide water information in the terms of reference we are suggesting. The relevance of scientific and professional expertise is, I think, obvious. There are at least six major areas of scientific and professional expertise currently involved in the water industry.
Professional chemists like myself, although the single most important and probably the most numerous group, form but one of a group of scientific disciplines. Perhaps I may run through the others. First, there is the practice of biochemistry. Biochemists are not involved in great numbers in the water industry and not many are employed as full-time employees by water authorities; rather they are to be found in bodies such as the Water Research Centre, originally a quango, but soon to be privatised. They are employed there to give specialist advice. Biochemists are mainly to be found in the field of toxicology and aquatic toxicology concerned with mammalian lifeforms in waters and streams. Many chemists and biologists are also capable of fulfilling such functions.
Biologists are mainly used in monitoring with a specific remit in the conservation field where fisheries and conservation of plant life form a co-ordinated whole and are very relevant to the NRA's functions. Biologists take samples from
98
stream beds and count the number of organisms disturbed—that is, larvae, and so on—and hence classify the water course for its biological nature. That is a vital part of classifying the water and is a factor in determining the extent of any pollution present.
I turn now to engineering and engineers of one kind or another. There are mechanical engineers, there are civil engineers, there are even engineering geologists. They probably comprise the next single greatest number of professionals in water authorities—that is, after chemists. Engineers are involved in all aspects of river engineering, flood prevention and water resource management; for example, hydrometry—that is water flow—and hydrology, which is the occurrence of water in rocks, strata and so on.
Prominent among engineers are the civil engineers. They are responsible for water collection, water containment and water disposal in the widest sense. Chemical engineers play an important part in sewage treatment plants, together with mechanical engineers and electrical engineers who are also involved, not least because some sewage treatment works have self-generating electricity supplies.
Geologists, like biochemists, are not found in great numbers and are mainly used on a consultancy basis in today's water industry. I should tell Members of the Committee that for the past four weeks I have been listening to engineering geologists giving their opinions as regards the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on the liability of ground water invading the basements of houses in the rest of Cardiff. They are an extremely important and highly skilled source of information. Geologoists are also involved in land reclamation and the effect it may have on the contamination of water.
The Royal Society of Chemistry is what I shall describe as an amalgam of what was once upon a time the Royal Institute of Chemistry—of which I was a Fellow and which very graciously admitted me to honorary fellowship on the 50th anniversary of my registration as a student—and the Chemical Society, which is a learned body. They amalgamated and formed the Royal Society of Chemistry. I served my stint on the council of the Royal Institute of Chemistry and I continue to serve on the parliamentary and legal committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry. The society has given me a great deal of help in preparing the brief about which I have been talking to the Committee.
Next, we have the sources of information represented by the professional institutions. They are the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institute of Biology, the Institute of Fisheries Management, the Institute of Water and Environmental Management, the Geological Society and the Biochemical Society. It ought to be possible for the chairman of the NRA and the Minister to approach those societies in order to find a collection of experts who could act as professional advisers of the highest level to the water authority with regard to the ongoing activities of the authority's subordinates.
Perhaps Members of the Committee could imagine themselves as chairman of the new body. One would have a colleague on a level who would be responsible for all its technological affairs. Would one not ask oneself from time to time, "I wonder whether my colleague's subordinates are up to their job? Are we giving the very best service we can?" What a wonderful thing it would be for him to be able to have a statutory advisory council. There are precedents for such a council; for example, in the Medicines Act there are advisory councils which advise the Minister on the application of the Act. There are also the precedents of the Ogden Report of 1973 which concerned the water industry itself and which set up an advisory body.
Further,there is the need for public relations; that is, the knowledge of the public of something as absolutely vital to everyone as water supply. Surely it is important for the Minister and the chairman of the NRA to ensure that they are getting the very best scientific advice possible. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Earl will be kind enough to accept it, I should like to offer my support for the amendment and the subsequent amendments that he proposes to move. His last point was especially telling. It relates to the case that I was trying to make for a coherent statement of the function of the NRA, because there is a necessity for public confidence in the NRA. If the NRA is to perform effectively as the guardian of conservation and environmental standards not only must it have, as I failed to convince the Committee, a business plan, but the public must be convinced that it is obtaining the best possible advice.
The best possible advice, as the noble Earl described far more clearly than I ever could— although I have had the same help from the Royal Society for Chemistry, to which I pay tribute—is that the NRA should take scientific advice. Again, I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, were still with us, because I am sure that on this occasion he would agree with us about the necessity for consultation with the appropriate scientific authorities. I do not know whether he would agree with the particular means by which that is to be achieved, but he will undoubtedly be consulting scientific authorities in that way. It seems appropriate to bring the point into the Bill at this stage in the way proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
Lord Moran: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. A scientific advisory council might, for example, play a valuable part in overseeing the work of fishery scientists employed by the NRA. Fishery scientists at present employed by Welsh Water have done excellent work in Wales. It is important that after the NRA is set up that work should be co-ordinated with the work of the scientists working for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods and with those in Scotland employed by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
100
There is no doubt that problems in the fisheries field can arise quickly and can be serious. For example, the louse (gyrodactylus salaris), that has caused fearful damage in Norwegian salmon rivers which came originally from fish farms, has given rise to enormous and intractable problems on which scientific expertise has to be brought to bear.
There are now also problems with the genetic effect of escapes of farmed salmon on wild salmon stocks. That is a problem which will be considered by the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation in Edinburgh at its annual meeting next month. For all those reasons I believe that the suggestions are valuable and I hope that the Government will consider them seriously.
The Earl of Arran: On the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, it is not so much the principle that separates us but the method of application of that principle; that is, scientific advice to the NRA. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a scientific advisory council, including members with relevant scientific and professional expertise, with a duty to advise the NRA on scientific matters related to its functions.
I am sure that the Committee is agreed on the importance to the NRA of having sound scientific advice regarding the exercise of its functions. There can be no difference between us on that matter. What we cannot accept, though, is that the right way to provide such advice is for the Secretary of State to appoint an advisory council. The NRA will employ many scientists on its staff and we know that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell hopes shortly to be able to appoint a chief scientist to the NRA. The chief scientist will be responsible for advising the NRA board on the long-term scientific aspects of all the board's activities, for developing policy proposals for all pollution control activities and managing laboratory services involved in the development and monitoring of those services and for initiating and co-ordinating all scientific research and development.
In due course, and taking into account his advice, the NRA may wish to seek further scientific advice or to establish a scientific advisory committee; but it would be more appropriate for the NRA itself to decide on its requirements in that respect and certainly we consider that it would be quite wrong for the Secretary of State to impose upon the NRA, at its inception, an outside panel of scientific advisers.
In conclusion, I shall of course bring the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to the attention of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. But in the meantime I hope that I have persuaded the noble Earl to withdraw this amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: I do not know that I am persuaded to withdraw the amendment. I am trying to preserve the future chairman of the NRA from the in-breeding that will result from his making his own appointments as chief scientist. He is bound to ask himself at some point in time, "I wonder whether this chap's subordinates are as good as they tell me they are".

101
For 20 years I was a member of the Science and Engineering Research Council: I was appointed by the Secretary of State. For four years I was a member of the Medical Research Council: I was appointed by the Secretary of State. I was a member of the Science Museum Advisory Council for many years—16, I think—and I was appointed by the Secretary of State. What is wrong with the appointment of an advisory council by the Secretary of State?
The point that I wish to bring home to the Committee is simply the need for some kind of mechanism to reverse the tendency towards in-breeding in an organisation which may become progressively more bureaucratic with the years. That is the fate of all us us who are bureaucrats mangués at some time or another in our lives. So unless the noble Earl who is replying for the Government can give me some assurance that the matter will be reconsidered on Report or at some suitable stage of the Bill, I fear that I must test the opinion of the Committee on a matter on which I feel so deeply. I may be defeated in the Lobby or I may not; I do not know. I may have no Tellers. However, I feel that I cannot withdraw the amendment at this stage. I wish to get the feeling of the Committee on the subject.
9.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 72.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNair, L.

Airedale, L.

Moran, L.

Barnett, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brain, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Carter, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Greenway, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Truro, Bp.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Vernon, L,.

Kinloss, Ly.

Walston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Whaddon, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Dundee, E.

Bauer, L.

EUes, B.

Beloff, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belstead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goold, L.

Carnock, L.

Gridley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harvington, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Henley, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Hesketh, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

102

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Joseph, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kimball, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swinton, E.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Middleton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Torrington, V.

Mountevans, L.

Trafford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Norrie, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Radnor, E.

Westbury, L.

Renton, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rochdale, V.

Wigram, L.

Romney, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Selborne, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.24 p.m.
Schedule 1 [The National Rivers Authority]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 184, line 19, leave out ("incapacitated by physical or mental illness or is otherwise").
The noble Lord said: I need not detain the Committee very long in moving this amendment. Perhaps I may say in moving it that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has asked me to say that, although she cannot be present today, she very much supports this amendment.
The phrase:
"incapacitated by physical or mental illness"
as a reason for removal of a member of the NRA by the Minister is not just careless drafting: it is needlessly offensive to people with disabilities. There are many reasons in the Bill why a person may be unable or unfit to carry out the functions of a member but in my view there is no need to single out physical or mental illness.
The phrase has appeared before in a number of Bills, including the Housing Bill and the Education Reform Bill. Each time the phrase has appeared some of us have had to put down amendments to remove the phrase and each time the Government have accepted the amendments. It is clear that the phrase is part of standard drafting phraseology. Perhaps I may suggest to the Government that it would save the time of Parliament if the Government were to give a general instruction to the parliamentary draftsmen to remove this offensive phrase from their standard phraseology.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as they have accepted similar amendments to a number of other Bills. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made his case with the usual overwhelming conviction and clarity. I fully accept the rap on the knuckles. I shall try not to let it happen in the Local Government and Housing Bill, which will be the next Bill which the noble Lard, Lord

103
McIntosh, and I shall debate. I am very happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 184, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I should like Amendment No. 15 also to be taken into account because it is of a similar nature. The two amendments are very simple. They refer to the approval of the Treasury being required for the details of remuneration and pensions attributed to the NRA and for detailed staffing arrangements.
I have put forward the amendments because I was very struck with what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said in the Second Reading debate. He pointed out:
"We have been repeatedly told by Ministers that the NRA is to be a strong and independent body. Yet the Bill provides that its management arrangements should all be subject in some detail to the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, which in practice means their officials. I am talking about what may be described as pay and rations matters… We face a situation that those responsible for running the NRA are to be second guessed by the officials on a whole range of day to day matters… I have asked that the whole issue should be looked at again".—[Official Report, 17/4/89; col. 582.]
I hope that the whole issue has been looked at again. I believe that the Treasury should not have a role in these matters, which could very easily be settled between the Secretary of State and the chairman of the NRA. The requirement that everything, even the matter of travel allowances, should be referred back to the Treasury seems to me to be excessive. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would remove the requirement for the Treasury to approve the remuneration and pensions of NRA members. It is standard practice for all non-departmental public bodies that if the chairman and members who are appointed by Ministers are to be paid then their level of remuneration must be determined by the Ministers concerned, with Treasury approval.
The NRA will be a major non-departmental public body receiving grant-in-aid to carry out its important functions and it will have a board of up to 15 members including the chairman. I see no reason to depart from the normal practice for non-departmental public bodies, water authorities and, indeed, British Coal that the Ministers who will appoint members to the board should be required to seek the approval of the Treasury.
Amendment No. 15 would remove the requirement for the Treasury to approve the numbers and terms and conditions of service of the NRA staff. It is normal for staff of a non-departmental public body, as the NRA would be, to have terms and conditions which are subject to the Secretary of State's approval, with the agreement of the Treasury. The main responsibility for control and accountability for questions concerning a non-departmental public body's staff, pay and conditions rests with the sponsor department.
104
That does not mean that it is necessary for Ministers, or their civil servants, to second guess the decisions of the NRA and other decisions of the NRA and other comparable bodies. We entirely accept the comments made by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell at Second Reading, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, drew the Committee's attention earlier this evening, that the NRA must be a strong and independent body, with proper management responsibility. It will be our intention in the financial memorandum between the department and the NRA and with other controls to provide a framework that encourages the management of the NRA to have as full and effective responsibility as possible.
But it is also important to recognise that there are, quite rightly, stringent requirements for parliamentary accountability for the use of public funds. Ministers in the sponsoring department and the Treasury are ultimately answerable for the policies of the NRA and its use of public funds. That is why those controls—which also apply to other non-departmental public bodies—are in the schedule.
However, as I have indicated, we recognise that we need to strike the right balance between public accountability and the need to encourage management responsibility in bodies like the NRA. That is something that we shall have very much in mind in working up the detailed arrangements between the NRA, the department and the Treasury. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Am I alone in detecting a certain degree of political schizophrenia in the Government's response to this amendment, as there was in the response to the earlier amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton about the membership of the NRA? In one breath the Minister refers to a strong and independent body; in the next breath, he repeats the tired old stuff about the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament, which appears to mean that the members of the NRA cannot possibly represent anyone else or be in any way independent of the Secretary of State. They must all be appointed at his whim and must apparently be paid according to what he says. I support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in this matter. Of the two positions held by the Government, I prefer the strong and independent NRA to the subservient NRA which is enshrined in the Bill.
Lord Ezra: Are we to take it that the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that the issue should be looked at again has been heeded and that the answer is negative?
Lord Hesketh: I tried to make it clear earlier that our intention in the financial memorandum between the department and the NRA was to make the situation as flexible as possible, in the light of the remarks made by my noble friend.
Lord Ezra: I have listened to what the Government have said on this relatively small issue. It is certainly not a matter on which the Committee should be asked to indicate its views in a Division. We may come back to it later, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 187, line 28, at end insert—

("Access to information

13A. In the Local Government Act 1972, in section 100J (definition of principal council for the purposes of Part VA of that Act (Access to meetings and documents of certain authorities)) in subsection (3) there shall be the inserted the following paragraph:
(g) The National Rivers Authority.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with access to information. We believe that the NRA, as an important public body, should be treated like other local government bodies and a number of other authorities in having to make its information and documentation available to the public as set out in the Local Government Act 1972. The amendment simply states that the National Rivers Authority should be added to the bodies enumerated in that Act with a view to access to information. I beg to move
The Earl of Arran: This amendment was given a good hearing and sounding in another place, as I am sure the noble Lord is fully aware.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring the NRA and its committees within the scope of the Local Government Act 1972, as inserted by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. As the noble Lord said, the effect would be to require meetings of the NRA and its committees to be open to the public, for the public to have access to agenda and connected papers and for the minutes and other documents to be open for inspection.
I must emphasise that the Acts referred to above relate to local authority councils and related bodies carrying out local authority functions such as fire and police authorities. The NRA is not of course a public representative body in the same way as a local authority, as this amendment implies. It does not therefore follow that its procedures should mirror those of local authorities. We do not propose that NRA board meetings should be open to the public nor that papers will generally be made available to the public. As a non-departmental public body, the NRA is under a duty imposed by Clause 146 of the Bill to prepare an annual report on its activities and to submit this to the Secretary of State and to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Secretary of State is required to lay a copy of each such report before Parliament. It is through the annual report that the public is properly kept informed of the work of the NRA and its committees. This is the normal arrangement for non-departmental public bodies.
The NRA Advisory Committee headed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has considered the question of public access to the three regional committees (the flood defence, fisheries advisory
106
and rivers advisory committees) and is of the opinion that these committees should be open to the public subject to their exclusion from items involving confidential information. We would expect the NRA to adopt that policy and open its regional committees to the public. This is, however, a matter for the NRA.
In view of the NRA's accountability through Ministers and Parliament, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: If these regional committees are to be open to public listening and public scrutiny of documents, can the noble Earl say why the same cannot apply to more important functions which are to be carried out on a national basis? I should have thought that in these days of glasnost the Government should perhaps have second thoughts about the matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues start from the premise that they do not want the public to be involved or even have access, so can an argument for that be produced? Thus they fall back on the argument that the NRA is not on all fours with other bodies that are open to the public. It is a quite astounding argument.
It is no good saying that the reason the meetings of the rivers authority cannot be treated in the same way as those of local authorities is that it is not a local authority. Of course it is not. This is a unique situation. This is the third or fourth time that the Government have acted detrimentally to the interests of the consuming public by not treating this new body as unique of its kind. I certainly will support any move by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to test the feelings of the Committee on this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Some Members of the Committee may remember that I had the privilege of taking the Local Government (Access to Information) Act through this Chamber. My recollection of that Act is that it consists of an extremely complicated set of requirements on local government which are designed specifically for the very complex political structure of local government. It requires an additional number of officials to provide papers and so on in advance of meetings and it caters for an organisation which has many sub-committees. The whole purpose of the measure was intended to make it impossible for local government, which after all consists of local councils which are elected bodies, to push measures through sub-committees without the public being aware that they were going through, so that by the time they reached the council, which is the main committee that must be open to the public, the decisions had already been taken.
This kind of body that we were discussing earlier when talking about the make-up of the NRA is very different. It is performing certain functions pragmatically. It is not a political body in the sense that a local government body is. I should not have thought that this was the right way to open its

107
activities to public knowledge. It would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and would make life very difficult for this body. That is not to say that it should operate in a secret way and should not let the public know all that it is doing. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I do not think that this is the right way to achieve what he wishes. It does not fit the situation.
Baroness Seear: The only way for it not to be secret is for it to be open. It must be one or the other. The National Rivers Authority is a watchdog body. It is not primarily an executive body. It will have executive duties but its prime function is to ensure that the way in which the water supplies are run, and the implications of so doing, are watched in the interests of the public. Surely the public ought to have access to what its watchdog is doing. We are not talking about a straightforward executive organisation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the noble Baroness agree with me that the local government access to information legislation would be a sledgehammer to crack that nut?
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on the point that he raised. I repeat that the NRA is under a duty imposed by Clause 146 of the Bill to prepare an annual report on its activities, which is submitted to the Secretary of State. This is not a question of being closed or secret. There are three other clauses. First, Clause 113 requires the NRA to maintain on public registers particulars of certain matters such as water quality objectives, consents to discharges, and water samples. Clause 126 requires the NRA and water
108
undertakings to make available information about water flows, levels or volume. Clause 145 requires the NRA to provide Ministers with all such information regarding its property, functions and responsibilities as they may reasonably require. Indeed, there will be a press officer appointed. This public body will have a very high profile indeed.
Lord Ezra: I am pleased to learn that the NRA Advisory Committee has agreed that some of the regional bodies should be open to the public. It would be better if it had also agreed that in some form all their activities should be open to the public, apart from those that were necessarily of a confidential nature affecting commercial considerations that might come their way.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said. With her experience of the Local Government Act 1972, she did not consider that this was necessarily the right way to handle the matter. I thought that she was saying that there might be some other way to enable people to be kept more up to date on what the NRA is doing than simply having to wait each year for the annual report, which might or might not be widely read.
I should like to ponder on what has been said on this subject at this time and to come back to it at a later stage with some other proposal that would open up the deliberations of the NRA more effectively to the public, perhaps without bringing in the Local Government Act 1972. I accept what the noble Baroness said about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 188, line 1, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) and insert—
("(3) The Authority shall charge to the appropriate revenue account in every year all charges which are proper to be made to that revenue account including such allocations to reserve as they consider adequate.
(4) Where the Authority has an excess or deficiency on any account, it shall be carried forward to the financial year following and shall be deducted (if an excess) or added (if a deficiency) in ascertaining the charges relevant to that account for the year following.
(5) The provisions of sub-paragraph (4) above shall not apply to such revenue as falls within paragraph 16 below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 18. I said at Second Reading that in my view NRA funding would be crucial and it was important that it should stand on its own feet financially and be independent of the government of the day. I thought that it ought not to be subject to close and detailed Treasury control on day-to-day matters. The noble Lords, Lord Middleton and Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I have sought to translate that general thought into the terms of these two amendments. Their effect would be to remove the provision in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 giving power to the Treasury to take over any surplus in the NRA accounts, to replace that with provisions requiring the NRA to keep accounts and to carry over surpluses or deficiencies to the following year. It would also remove the provision in paragraph 7 relating to the Treasury's power to grant-aid the NRA and replace it with a provision to give the NRA power to raise charges on consumers within each region.
The functions that will be transferred from the water authorities to the NRA are various. The largest perhaps is land drainage and flood protection, which at the moment is funded to a small extent by grant aid but primarily by precepts levied on county councils. As I understand it, that will continue under the NRA so that need not concern us. The other functions—water resources, pollution control, fisheries, recreation and navigation—are financed partly by charges on those concerned (such as water abstraction charges and rod licences paid by fishermen) and partly by means of the environmental service charge which was introduced by Parliament in 1976 and is levied direct on all ratepayers by the water authorities. That charge, which as far as I know has worked extremely well and has caused no complaints at all, collects about £60 million in a year.
The expenditure estimates that I have seen for the NRA in 1990 is that overall it will spend about £290 million. Of that £ 150 million is accounted for by flood defence, so that leaves £140 million, of which £60 million will be spent on water resources, £55 million on river quality control, £15 million on fisheries, £7.3 million on navigation, £3.3 million on recreation and amenity and £4 million on headquarters and research. The largest of those is water resources, and that I understand will be fully recovered by means of abstraction charges payable by all abstractors.
Of the expenditure on river and coastal water quality, which obviously is very important, it is estimated that about £25 million will be recovered by charges under the Control of Pollution Act, leaving a deficit of about £30 million a year. There will be receipts for fisheries, both from the rod licences and from the Section 28 levy on riparian owners; but there will be expenditure on fisheries, navigation, recreation and amenity which will probably result in a deficit of about £17 million a year The total deficit will be between £45 million and £50 million a year. At the moment the Government's suggestion is that that deficit should be covered by Exchequer grant.
There are two big disadvantages in what the Government are proposing. The first is that removing the surplus each year, if there is a surplus, would remove the valuable inducement on the staff of the NRA to manage their finances competently and sensibly. If someone has, say, a surplus of £30,000 and he knows that it will be taken away by the Treasury, the odds are that he will try to find a way to spend it. But if he knows that he can carry it over, as he could under our amendment, if he is a sensible man he will probably arrange matters prudently so that that money can be spent in the following year, with a saving on the money that might otherwise be spent then. So it would help to secure prudent and cost-conscious management, which I am sure the Government will want.
Although I entirely accept the fact that the Government have given an assurance that the NRA will be given all the resources it needs—and I am certain that they are sincere in that assurance—some future government may take a different view and we may run into financial difficulties. If that occurred, clearly Exchequer grant will be vulnerable when set against costs for hospitals, defence and so forth. Obviously it is an item that the Treasury will look at with a beady eye and will wish to cut. It would be better if we could have a successor to the environmental service charge. It could be raised easily by the NRA in the regions where the money was required. That would bring the NRA into close contact regionally with the consumers and with all the interests concerned, which would be valuable and important.
I believe that that could be done simply by having small percentage additions of, say, .004 per cent. to water bills and by the NRA contracting out the collection of the charge to the plcs. There should be no administrative difficulty about that. I concede that the Treasury must keep control of the overall amount raised in that way by the NRA but it would be perfectly practicable to do that. I believe that in consequence the NRA would be more independent, more secure and more cost conscious. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: As the noble Lord has explained, the basic issue which is raised by the two amendments is the element of Treasury control, if any, which should remain over the regulation of the water industry. As he has also explained, the question

111
is whether those functions which are to be transferred to the National Rivers Authority which are not self-financing should be paid for by Treasury grant or by placing a local levy on the users of water similar to the present environmental service charge.
The case for privatisation hinges on the belief that one should remove water undertakings from under the hand of a Treasury operating under whatever pressures may come from the economy at any particular time. During the Second Reading debate many noble Lords referred to the under-financing of the present water authorities. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell referred to the needs of the water industry having been subordinated to the overall requirements of Exchequer policy. My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to the interruption of coherent long-term investment strategies by changing political priorities. He referred to the savage cuts in 1976 and to the temptation to fudge quality objectives because of financial constraints.
In applying those arguments to the financing of the NRA by the method proposed under the Bill, the worry is that the NRA will be under constant pressure from the Treasury to reduce its costs by cutting back on its activities. If part of the NRA's functions is to be funded directly by the Treasury, I join the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in fearing that the result will inevitably be the continuing insufficient finance for the NRA to do its job effectively. One can also envisage pressure on the NRA to raise its direct charges for abstraction, fishing, discharge controls and so on.
Against that, it may be that the Government will argue that to operate what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell called a slim, efficient, cost-conscious organisation and the only safeguard against a high-spending and extravagant NRA in the future is to retain a measure of Treasury control. On Second Reading the Minister said:
"but that the responsibility of the state should be clearly confined to regulation, while the business of production passes to the private sector".—[Official Report, 17/4/89; col. 547.]
Again on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked for the widest possible charging powers to reduce to a minimum the dependence of the NRA on the Treasury. These amendments go further than that and aim to abolish any dependence on the Treasury. They give my noble friend the widest possible charging powers. There is a nice choice here. Which is the more likely: a spendthrift NRA or a penny-pinching Treasury? On balance, I put my money on a responsible NRA, although that horse has yet to come under starter's orders against a Treasury whose form is very well known. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I understand that this is a radical approach to try to find money for the National Rivers Authority. My noble friend on the Front Bench may not feel able to accept it in total today. We do not feel that that is necessary but I hope that he will be able to take away this amendment and think very seriously about it between now and Report stage.
Lord Greenway: I should like to add a word of support on behalf of boating interests. Under the Bill the NRA will inherit the responsibility of maintaining navigations for three water authorities; namely, Anglian, which covers the rivers Ouse and Nene, Southern, which looks after the upper Medway, and the Thames. There are almost 40,000 boats, including hired craft, registered on those rivers, which are important sources of amenity and recreation for boating enthusiasts and the general public alike. In the case of the Thames, it is known that over 6 million people visited the river last year.
As we know, the Government intend to abolish the environmental service charge and to make up the deficit in part through increased charges and in part through grant in aid. However, they have made clear their view that charges will have to increase and no commitment has been forthcoming regarding the level of grant.
At present, the navigation accounts for those three water authorities operate in some deficit, totalling about £2,900,000. If perhaps 75 per cent. of the deficit of the navigation account were to be financed by increased boat charges, that would bring about increased fees for river users roughly in the order of 73 per cent. for Southern, 92 per cent. for Anglian and 108 per cent. for Thames. Those figures assume complete inelasticity of demand, and in fact the result would be that many of the less well-off boating enthusiasts would be forced off the rivers altogether.
Boating interests believe that the NRA should be encouraged to see that the maintenance of those navigations is a local amenity and believe that it would be unfair and unreasonable to expect even a substantial proportion of the current deficit on the navigation accounts to be recovered from users. That is unrealistic, because many people will be unable to pay the higher charges, as I have pointed out, and will be unfair because the maintenance of the navigation benefits the whole community both financially and in terms of the general amenities provided; for example, many people like to walk along the river bank.
Moreover, proper maintenance of the locks and weirs is essential if the river is to flow smoothly and permit abstraction along its course. It is fair to say that a percentage of the deficit on navigation accounts could properly be charged to those private interests which benefit accordingly. It is for that reason that boating interests believe the NRA should be allowed to levy some sort of service charge.
10 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. There are few points on which I disagree with the Government but I am anxious that my noble friend the Minister should think hard about retaining the present environmental service charge system. I believe that the regional river advisory committees, in determining what those charges should be and how they are to be spent, would be responsive to local pressures as they have been in the past. They would perhaps therefore be more capable than any other

113
body of advising the NRA well. That would particularly be the case if the regional river advisory committees are as well balanced as they should be, and I dare say will be, in the way they are appointed.
The Minister will find that if that is done he will escape the pressures that there will otherwise be from local committees with a chance to spend central government funds which will have a tendency to put in higher and higher bids for the more and more ambitious ideas that they will have. Therefore, it is much better that there should be some local responsibility for those charges. The regional committees, if well appointed, will provide the necessary balance and will be sensitive to local opinion and therefore behave more responsibly than might otherwise be the case. I know that the Government see these other functions as being catered for nationally rather than regionally; nevertheless, I believe that they are better settled regionally if possible.
There is little more for me to add, but I trust that my noble friend the Minister will bear in mind the very wide support that exists for the view I have endeavoured to express. The Minister may be saved a great deal of trouble in the future if he adopts the course suggested.
Lord Hesketh: These two amendments are designed to bring about changes to the proposed financial arrangements for the National Rivers Authority. Amendment No. 17 would remove the discretionary power of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to require the NRA to pay to him any surplus the NRA makes on either its revenue or capital accounts. It would also have the effect of providing for the creation of financial reserves in respect of the NRA's various functions and for the carry-over from one financial year to another of any surplus or deficit of the NRA's accounts.
Amendment No. 18 aims to give the National Rivers Authority a wide power to recover the costs of the functions it performs, other than those carried out under the Land Drainage Act 1976—as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, pointed out—through charging the users of water services. In determining such charges in any region, the NRA would need to take into account the specific costs of the functions performed in that region.
I should like to deal first with Amendment No. 17. As a public sector body, and one exercising monopoly powers in respect of some of its functions, it is essential that the NRA should be subject to the financial controls appropriate to a body responsible for voted expenditure. It is important to bear in mind the importance of control on public expenditure, and that depends in part on the control of public expenditure totals.
This approach is not readily compatible with the carrying over of large surpluses or deficits from one year to another. Although we expect the NRA to be able to raise most of its income through local charges, we also expect that such charges will be insufficient to meet all the NRA's costs in the foreseeable future. A deficit of around £70 million, or about 25 per cent. of its total expenditure, is anticipated in
114
1990–91, which is the NRA's first full year of operations. That deficit will be met through grant-in-aid.
In reaching decisions about the levels of grant-in-aid required, we shall of course expect the NRA to provide accurate and reliable forecasts of its income and expenditure. We accept that it may sometimes be necessary for the NRA to carry over relatively small amounts of cash at the end of a financial year to allow for the normal flow of business. We do not anticipate that the NRA will carry forward deficits on the majority of its functions. With proper planning the NRA should be able to work within its budgets. If cash flow requirements so dictate, there is provision under paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 for the NRA to undertake temporary borrowing, within the year. In an extreme case there could be an application for additional grant-in-aid.
If for some reason a large surplus were to arise, this would indicate that grant-in-aid had been given to the NRA in advance of need and therefore that taxpayers had contributed more than was necessary towards its funding. The only other way in which the NRA could generate such a surplus would be if at some time in the future it was in a position to raise more in charges than it needed to finance its activities and did so; in other words, it began to make a profit. Neither of these situations would be acceptable and the appropriate course would be for the Exchequer to recover the surplus. The creation of reserves, which is also provided for by Amendment No. 17, would of course be dependent upon the creation of surpluses and would in the same way not be acceptable.
I should make clear to the Committee at this stage that the position regarding surpluses and deficits that I have just outlined applies to all of the NRA's activities apart from flood defence. The position with regard to flood defence is rather different. First, it will not require the support of grant-in-aid as the costs of the NRA's flood defence work will be met entirely through local authority precepts and MAFF and Welsh Office capital grants. Secondly, we recognise that this is a major area of NRA activity. Factors such as the weather may sometimes lead to significant disruptions to planned work programmes or the need for extra work. Provision already exists within Section 47 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 for the carrying forward of any excesses or deficiencies that may arise on water authorities' land drainage accounts as a result of changes to the planned annual programme of works. This power will transfer to the NRA when it takes up the water authorities' responsibilities for flood defence.
I hope that what I have said has shown to the Committee that Amendment No. 17 is undesirable. There are certainly precedents, with urban development corporations and housing corporations, to name but two, as examples for the power to recover surpluses which is set out in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 and which this amendment seeks to remove. It is a discretionary power and one that the Secretary of State can use only after consultation with the NRA. However, a power of this type provides a necessary

115
safeguard over public sector bodies which have the potential to make surpluses.
Moreover, we have given a full and unequivocal undertaking that the NRA will be provided with the resources it needs to carry out its functions. It will not need to rely on the creation of surpluses to fulfil its duties. Indeed, as I have indicated, the NRA will operate at an overall deficit for the foreseeable future, and it is unlikely that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would need to exercise his discretionary power.
As regards Amendment No. 18, this would allow the NRA to impose a charge similar to the environmental service charge which is currently levied by water authorities to meet the deficit that they incur on their environmental functions. Income derived from this charge rather than Exchequer grant-in-aid would be used by the NRA to fund the net deficit that we anticipate will continue to arise on these functions. The amendment does not specify exactly how the charge would be collected, but the only two realistic options would be through the new water plcs or by a special levy on local authorities within each region, which one assumes could be collected through the community charge.
I should like to explain why this method of funding the NRA's deficit would not be appropriate, but it is first necessary to put the size of the deficit into perspective. In 1990–91, the first full financial year of the NRA's existence, its total expenditure is expected to be in the region of £290 million. Of this, some £220 million will be met from direct charges, leaving around £70 million to be met by Exchequer grant-in-aid. Therefore, as I have already said, only about one-quarter of the NRA's expenditure will be met centrally, and we expect this proportion to reduce over time as the NRA's direct charging systems, particularly those for discharge consents, get properly into gear. We have made it absolutely clear on many occasions that the Government will ensure that the NRA will have all the resources it needs to carry out its functions.
In our policy statement on the NRA issued in December 1987, we stated that because the NRA would be a national body providing services such as water quality control, pollution alleviation and fisheries protection for the community as a whole, it was right that the deficit should be met centrally. This consideration is as valid now as it was then. In any event the alternatives to funding the NRA's deficit are unacceptable. Reliance on the new water plcs for the collection of a charge to meet the NRA's deficit would suggest that the NRA's activities were in some sense subservient to those of the companies, and could undermine the NRA's independence, especially in the highly sensitive area of pollution control. The NRA must be, and must be seen to be, totally independent. Furthermore, as the NRA will be doing business with a wide range of bodies, and not just the new plcs, it would not be appropriate for the NRA to meet its overall deficit through charges levied simply on the customers of the plcs.
The other option I have mentioned is the possibility of funding the NRA's deficit through a levy on local authorities. But there is a serious
116
objection to this approach also. Local authority representatives will have a major role in the planning of flood defence works through the NRA's flood defence committees, but we do not think it would be desirable to extend such an arrangement further. It is important for the NRA to develop as a national body, and local decisions on charging levels and spending priorities across the whole range of the NRA's activities would have the effect of undermining the NRA as a national body and weakening its chances of developing meaningful national strategies on its various environmental functions.
The arrangements we propose for the NRA's funding will be responsive to local needs. Decisions on the distribution of resources will take account of local conditions as they will be based on information supplied by each NRA region, and the NRA will have a very strong regional structure to facilitate this approach. Furthermore, as I have said, most of the NRA's environmental functions will be funded to a considerable extent through income derived from locally raised charges.
In his earlier remarks my noble friend Lord Stanley said that this might be considered a rather radical approach. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he and the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Middleton, will be able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend sits down, he stated that he thought that this sum of money should come from the Treasury. Did he listen to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, who said very strongly at Second Reading that he wished to be independent of the Treasury?
Lord Hesketh: Yes, I did.
Lord Moran: I am naturally disappointed by what the Minister has said I was reminded of a cartoon by the immortal Pont which had the caption:
" 'This looks like Dead-Face Anderson's work', said the detective inspector, eyeing the corpse in the bath".
The Minister's answer seemed to be redolent of the work of a Treasury hand. It seemed to be Treasury prose all over. As the whole point of the amendment was to propose that the NRA should be free from Treasury control, what the Minister said was very unwelcome. I hope that he will look carefully at what he said, because he has not addressed any of the dangers and difficulties that we have pointed out. I hope he will pay attention to what was said by a number of noble Lords in support of the two amendments. I am grateful to them for what they said.
There is real substance in the amendments. I do not think that the Government are right. I very much hope that they will ponder what has been said and perhaps at a later stage, when we may want to come back to it, they will be more flexible. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19.
Page 189, line 33, after ("its") insert ("environmental and").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment on the same issue because, as we have made clear from the outset of the debate on the Bill, we are not satisfied—despite the assurances which have been given by the Government—that the resources of the NRA are adequately secured. We observed that the provision for borrowing, other than temporary borrowing, within a year, and only then for flood defence purposes, was only added by the Government on Report in another place. Until that time there had been no provision whatever for borrowing other than that for borrowing of a temporary nature. In the light of the wide range of environmental responsibilities, many of which involve substantial capital expenditure, the concern which was very widely felt was properly reflected by the Secretary of State in the amendment which he moved at that time. However, I do not believe that that amendment goes far enough to deal with the concern which has so properly been expressed.
In any event, the amounts of money which are provided for in the schedule are quite inadequate to reflect even the needs of flood defence. I understand that the Department of the Environment's own estimates of the needs for capital expenditure on flood defence in 1990–91 are that it should be £160 million. If we take into account the fact that some years ago the cost of flood defences associated with the construction of the Thames barrier—that is, not the cost of the Thames barrier itself but the associated flood defences in the Thames estuary to ensure that when the barrier was lowered it did not simply mean floods further down the estuary—was £105 million, at prices at that time, the amount of money provided, which is £100 million with the Secretary of State able by order to increase the sum to £160 million, is clearly not adequate even for flood defence purposes.
The implication of that must be that virtually all of the capital expenditure for which borrowing will be required by the NRA will be used for flood defence purposes. In that case there will be no surplus whatever for any other capital programmes. That situation does not make good business sense. Of course much of the work of the NRA can be done on a year-by-year charging basis. We do not deny that fact; indeed, that is the nature of much of the work of conservation and environmental protection which is being carried out. However, there is a significant part of it, of which flood defence is only one part, which requires capital expenditure.
It would be a gross imposition on the local authorities which happened to be affected by the need for capital expenditure that they should be precepted for the amounts required and that they should be required to find that money out of a single year's revenue income. Borrowing for those capital purposes—and this includes environment as well as flood defence—is sound economic sense. It should apply to the NRA as well as to other organisations.
What concerns us in the matter is the feeling that behind this provision lies an unwillingness to fund
118
the NRA adequately. However, if that is not the case, it is difficult to understand why the Government, having conceded the principle of longer-term borrowing in the case of flood defence programmes, should resist the idea of extending it to other necessary environmental work. It will of course still be part of the public sector borrowing requirement and it will still be subject to Treasury controls—pace the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and his colleagues. If it were added to the Bill, it is something which would make for a more rational use of financial resources which are not merely year to year but sometimes have to be carried on for a longer period of years. I beg to move.
Lord Moran: I support the amendment. A number of functions which the NRA will have to take on may require substantial capital expenditure other than for flood defences. For example, an opportunity may arise to construct a regulating reservoir, or the flow in a river may alter for some reason and require the construction of such a reservoir. There may be a plan by the plcs to build a reservoir for water supply purposes which the NRA may want to add to or amend in some degree so that the reservoir could also serve as part of its water resources policy.
The NRA should be able to finance those major physical items either through borrowing, as the amendment suggests, or, as a previous amendment suggested, through the accumulation of reserves. If it can do neither, the NRA may be in serious trouble.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 19 is designed to widen the powers provided in the Bill for the NRA to undertake long-term borrowing. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has reminded the Committee, the Bill already provides for the NRA to borrow to meet capital expenditure on its flood defence function. The amendment would have the effect of allowing the NRA to borrow to meet expenditure in relation to its environmental functions as well.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that careful consideration of this matter has convinced us that it is neither necessary nor desirable to provide the NRA with borrowing powers in respect of its non-land drainage functions. As a matter of principle, it is not appropriate for a non-trading public body like the NRA, which will rely on Exchequer grant-in-aid to fund its deficit, to have general borrowing powers; but in any event, the need for unexpected heavy expenditure is only likely to arise on the flood defence function. It should be possible for the NRA to finance expenditure on its environmental functions either through charges or out of its grant-in-aid. We can foresee no need for borrowing in respect of those functions.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Moran, listed some areas where he thought that expenditure might be needed, I cannot see any of those being of such a nature that borrowing would be required. Sensible planning and budgeting by the NRA would take into account the type of occasions that the noble Lord had in mind. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept that the Bill already provides adequately for those limited situations where borrowing might conceivably be needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister seems to believe that it is good enough to suggest that the NRA could fund its capital expenditure requirement—I notice that he did not deny that there would be a capital expenditure requirements, or requirements larger than revenue expenditure requirements—by a combination of charges and grant-in-aid. The problem with that is, first, that the charges, which are charges fundamentally on local authorities, will have to be met out of local authority revenue income. That will make the budgeting of the local authority community charge difficult and erratic because it cannot be predicted as to when those expenditures will occur. They may be high at certain times and may then fall off.
Unless the Minister is giving us an assurance that grant-in-aid will always be found for capital projects which the NRA considers to be necessary—I do not believe that the Minister was giving us that sort of assurance—I do not believe that grant-in-aid is an adequate alternative. No answer has been given to the case which I was seeking to make that there are elements of the NRA's expenditure on environmental matters—it is not an issue here of whether they can be predicted—which will be sufficiently large and over a sufficient period of time to justify being treated as capital expenditure and to justify borrowing. For these elements of expenditure neither charges nor grant-in-aid are adequate alternatives.
I am afraid that the Minister's pat rejection of the amendment confirms our fears that the resources that will be available to the NRA to carry out its environmental functions as well as its flood defence functions are simply inadequate. This is a matter to which we shall certainly have to return in one form or another at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 189, line 33, at end insert ("including any planned programme of works or emergency measures in pursuance of those functions").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is quite closely related to the previous one. Some of the arguments have already been rehearsed, not only in relation to Amendment No. 19 but in the Government's reply to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. I shall not take up a great deal of the Committee's time with it. However in addition to the point which has already been made about capital expenditure and borrowing powers being necessary as an alternative to precepts, it is necessary to recognise that there will be these major projects which go beyond the exceptional cases which the Secretary of State and the Government recognised at Report stage in another place. The Secretary of State said that the use would be restricted to situations where the NRA was faced with expenditure for which it has been impossible to plan.
In his speech at Second Reading, the noble Earl commented that with proper planning it should be possible for regional flood defence committees to plan expenditure so that borrowing was not required.
120
However, that might be the government view but it was not the view of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, at Second Reading. He questioned the wisdom:
"when there is already a requirement that the NRA should have the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury, to specify that the clause will be used only to meet expenditure in emergencies".
That is what our amendment does and if the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, were here I hope that the amendment would meet with his approval, because it follows very closely what he was saying at Second Reading.
There are occasions when the borrowing powers go beyond emergencies and there must be a presumption that the environmental work of the National Rivers Authority should so far as possible be on a planned basis and not be a response to emergencies. It is the response to emergencies that is the least efficient way of dealing with environmental protection. A planned programme of this work, one supported by borrowing powers, would be the rational way to proceed with this.
I can see that we could get into a great deal of trouble if we started on metaphors of fingers in dykes and I shall try to avoid that. But the metaphor is sufficiently close on this occasion to convince me, and it ought to convince the Committee, that the NRA should so far as possible be working towards planned expenditure in these matters and not relying on reaction to emergencies. That is the only occasion at the moment on which the Government allow it borrowing powers. Again, I believe that this amendment not only meets the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but follows the path towards which the Government are moving in the amendments which they put forward at Report stage in another place. It only requires a little further push to the Government in the direction which they recognise is the right one to make them accept the amendments. I hope that they will be able to do so. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support this amendment, particularly since it talks about emergency measures. I can cast my mind back to the time in the late 1940s and early 1950s when my father and the then Lord Fortescue were administering a large voluntary fund for the relief of people adversely affected by the Lynton and Lynmouth flood disaster. That is just one example of the sort of environmental problem that can, and is likely to, arise in the future at some unknown time out of rivers and flash floods and things of that kind.
These kinds of risks are generally uninsurable and the person affected may have his whole house, his business and his livelihood destroyed overnight. It is important that there should be a national long stop body that can make provision ahead of time, or can have borrowing powers to deal with such situations.
The Earl of Caithness: Amendment No. 20 is also designed to widen the powers provided in the Bill for the National Rivers Authority to undertake

121
long-term borrowing. The Bill already provides for the NRA to borrow to meet its flood defence function. This is a point that I think covers exactly that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. This amendment would have the effect of making clear that the NRA could borrow for a planned programme of flood defence works.
As the Committee may be aware, the Bill as originally introduced provided only for the NRA to have powers to undertake temporary borrowing in order to overcome any short-term cash flow problems that may occasionally arise. However, during Committee in another place concern was expressed that a power for the NRA to borrow temporarily was not sufficient on its own, and that the NRA should also have the ability to undertake long-term borrowing to fund its flood defence work. We listened carefully to the views put forward both in another place and elsewhere and were persuaded that it would be right to provide for some extension of the NRA's borrowing powers in this respect.
Accordingly the Bill was amended at Report stage in another place, and the relevant powers now appear in paragraphs 18 and 19 of Schedule 1. We have made clear that the use of these powers will in practice be limited to situations where the NRA is faced with unexpected heavy expenditure in order to avoid the risk of serious flooding. We do not envisage, therefore, that these powers would be used very often. We are confident, however, that they will ensure that the NRA is able to borrow where this is seen to be necessary, and will provide for the flood defence committees to carry out their important work as effectively as they have done in the past.
We do not consider that there is a case for allowing the NRA to borrow other than in respect of flood defence emergencies. I have already referred to the fact that it is not appropriate for a non-trading public body like the NRA, which will rely on Exchequer grant-in-aid to fund its deficit, to have general borrowing powers. But in any event it should be perfectly possible for the NRA to plan a balanced budget for the normal run of its flood defence works through the usual mechanisms without recourse to borrowing. Indeed, water authorities have generally managed without significant new borrowings in respect of flood defences in recent years.
I think I said it is worth reminding the Committee that, as was said earlier, we anticipate that grant-in-aid funding will diminish as the NRA moves into its second and third and subsequent years of existence. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made when he said he was worried that grant-in-aid might not be available in full in future years. Of course I sympathise with him, for there is no greater expert than the Labour Party on underfinancing the environment, and in particular the water and sewerage facilities.
Earlier this afternoon I gave the noble Lord an asurance of a government amendment. That was spurned. I do not offer that assurance now. What I offer instead is that I shall read with care what has been said on all these amendments because there is no doubt that we all want the same thing. We all want an efficient and properly financed NRA. I am
122
sure that that is what we shall achieve at the end of our consideration of this Bill. I hope that in the meanwhile the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that the noble Earl has given me an opportunity to say once again that I did not spurn his earlier offer of discussion or consideration of amendments. I said that since the amendments related to Clause 8 they could not meet the fundamental difficulty and could not be other than secondary and inadequate to meet the more basic point which we were making. That was the basis on which we were forced to proceed to a vote. I shall of course be very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the amendments with him and agree with them as far as I possibly can.
On this occasion the noble Earl is not making a promise of reconsideration or of any particular result arising from such reconsideration. However, it is clear not only from what I have said but from the progress of the Bill that the concern expressed about the lack of borrowing powers is gradually coming home to the Government. The concessions that they made in another place at Report stage were welcome. It is only logical for the Government now to look at flood defence expenditure not solely for emergencies but as a matter of prudent management which may well require planned expenditure.
The example which I gave of the Thames; barrier is very valid in relation to that point. A total of £105 million was expended on the associated flood defence of the estuary below the Thames barrier. The expenditure was financed by borrowing but under the Bill as now drafted it would no longer be possible to finance such expenditure by borrowing. Yet that expenditure was at least as valid as—and I would argue significantly more justified than—emergency expenditure on flood relief had proper planned provision not been made.
This is a matter of great concern, particularly to the low-lying counties in eastern England. They ought not to be forced to be the recipients solely of emergency relief. They ought to have an opportunity to benefit from planned expenditure by the National Rivers Authority. That is one of the authority's principal functions and it is one which it can best carry out by the planned expenditure which is the subject of this amendment and for which borrowing ought to be available.
I welcome the very guarded remarks of the Minister. I should be glad to discuss with him any progress that might be made towards a more rational approach to the borrowing powers of the NRA. before we come back to this matter at another stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regional rivers advisory committees]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): If Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 22 to 29 inclusive.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, leave out from beginning of line 33 to end of line 8 on page 3 and insert—
("(1) The Authority shall establish and maintain for each area which the Authority considers it appropriate for the time being to regard as a region of England and Wales for the purposes of this section—

(a) an advisory committee to be known as the Regional Environmental and Recreational Advisory Committee to advise the Authority upon the exercise by the Authority of its duties under section 7 of this Act; and

(b) such other advisory committees, if any, as the Authority may determine to appoint.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Authority—

(a) to consult the advisory committees for any region upon proposals of the Authority relating to the manner in which the Authority carries out its functions in that region; and

(b) to consider any representations made to it by an advisory committee for any region (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (a) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Authority carries out its functions in that region.

(2A) The Authority shall appoint as members of the Regional Environmental and Recreational Advisory Committee for any region persons who have substantial knowledge or experience of matters relevant to the exercise by the Authority of its duties under section 7 of this Act within that region.
(2B) Subject to subsection (2A) above, the Authority shall ensure that persons appointed by it to an advisory committee established and maintained under this section—").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 21, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42.
We now come to Clause 2 of the Bill, which requires the NRA to establish and maintain new regional rivers advisory committees. At Second Reading I voiced the fears of the boating interests, including the Inland Waterways Association, the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Industries Federation, that the influence of both the recreation and conservation interests might be reduced under the new proposals compared with the present arrangements whereby the water authorities of England and Wales are advised by separate regional recreational and conservation consultative committees made up of individuals nominated by interested organisations. As I said, this is an arrangement that has, by common consent, worked very well.
Under the proposals in the Bill, those new committees must be comprised of:
"persons who appear to the Authority to have an interest in matters likely to be affected by the manner in which the Authority carries out any of its functions in the region in question".
But the NRA will be under no obligation to ensure a balance among agricultural, conservation, local and recreational interests.
That contrasts with the proposals surrounding the formation of the quite separate regional flood defence committees to which an as yet unspecified number of members will be appointed by or on behalf of the constituent councils, or the regional fishery committees which will comprise persons who appear to the authority to be interested in fisheries. It also contrasts with the provisions governing the composition of the advisory committee which were contained in the Broads Bill under which Norfolk and Suffolk county councils and various district councils and public bodies, as well as boating and
124
farming interests, were allowed specific levels of representation.
It may well be that a good balance already exists in some regions, but that may not always be the case. The boating interests feel that the only way to ensure that the concerns of conservationists and recreational users are not ignored or given insufficient consideration is to maintain a separate committee.
It is important to remember in that context that the Government rejected amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill in another place which would have obliged the Secretary of State to consult interested bodies before appointing members of the NRA on the grounds that it is undesirable to create a situation in which members of the authority feel that they have been appointed to represent a particular interest. That makes it all the more important that the regional advisory committees are properly representative.
Finally, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment in another place justified his opposition to a separate advisory committee on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to have separate committees with a remit limited to environmental and conservation issues because that might suggest that those issues were secondary considerations or in some sense irrelevant to the NRA's main statutory duties. However, the boating interests believe that that fear is unjustified and that the existence of a separate committee as envisaged in my amendment is the best way to ensure that their interests are not overlooked.
I turn now to the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 42 which would require the sewerage and water undertakers to consult the advisory committees established by the NRA. If, as seems to be the case, boating or recreational interests are not to be represented on customer service committees, it follows that they will have no representation or advisory capacity at all in relation to the plcs' functions and resources. Yet, as the proposed code of practice says, consultation is an essential element of the full discharge of the relevant bodies' environmental duties. As I see it, the preferred solution would be to require each plc to consult the relevant NRA Advisory Committee. I have tabled the amendment with that aim.
I believe that the point that I am trying to make is a valid one so far as the boating interests are concerned. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord that his concerns and worries about this amendment are unfounded. The Bill before the House provides in Clause 2 for the establishment for each of the authority's regions of a regional rivers advisory committee whose role would be to advise the NRA on the performance of all its functions in that region.
The effect of Amendment No. 21 would be to delete that clause and substitute for it a provision requiring the establishment in its place of a regional environmental and recreational advisory committee

125
to advise the authority on the discharge of its general environmental duties in Clause 8—that is those concerning conservation, access and recreation and such other advisory committees as the authority may determine.
The effect of Amendment No. 42 would be to associate with this a further clause requiring the undertakers to consult the committee on the discharge of their duties under Clause 8.
There appear to be three principal considerations underlying this amendment which I should like to examine briefly in turn. The first is that there should be an advisory committee addressed specifically to conservation and recreational matters, as at present. We do not wish in any way to underestimate the importance of conservation and recreational matters, but I suggest to the Committee that it is a great merit of our present proposals that the advisory committee would in fact integrate all the concerns of the authority and look at these in the round. The fact is that pollution control matters, water resource matters and land drainage matters are all intimately bound up with conservation and recreation. The authority will need advice upon them and it will need advice on the interaction between those various functions. It will benefit from advice which can balance and reconcile the various considerations. That is what would be lost by this amendment and we believe that it would be a significant loss.
We recognise that the amendment makes provision for the authority to establish such other committees as it wishes, and that these could advise on water pollution and water resource matters. But the element of integration would be lost and we should besides be faced by a potential proliferation of committees which would not be very helpful.
The second consideration is the way in which the professed new clause would establish a direct link between the undertakers and the RRAC. I have to say that we do not believe that that would be desirable. We recognise of course that Clause 8 provides for the undertakers to have important recreational duties. They will be obliged to put their land and water to the best use for recreation. They will be accountable for the discharge of the duties. The Secretary of State can take enforcement action in respect of failure to observe the duties. He will publish a code of practice on performance of the duties. We have already published a draft of the code and are consulting relevant bodies upon its terms.
All those are substantial protections to ensure that undertakers properly maintain and extend recreation provisions as opportunity offers. They will be publicly accountable for that. We do not believe that to interpose an advisory committee appointed by and necessarily first responsible to the NRA would be helpful.
Moreover, given the duty on the NRA in Clause 8 generally to promote conservation and recreation, it is of course open to the undertakers to approach the NRA, which can in turn seek the views of its advisory committee. That is, I suggest, a more fitting arrangement for the new companies than to charge a committee appointed by the NRA with, in effect,
126
oversight of the environmental and recreational activities of the companies.
My third and final point is a more general one. Underlying these amendments is, I suspect, some fear that the new advisory committee structure that we propose will diminish the role and influence of recreational interests. Such fears are misplaced. Recreational interests will of course be properly represented on the RRACs. We are confident that the NRA advisory committee proposals, to which I have already referred, will make that clear beyond doubt. Nor have we any doubt that the NRA will build fully upon the good work of the present regional recreation and conservation committees. There is no reason to fear that the influence of recreational interests will be in any way diminished by what we propose.
In conclusion I repeat the three points. First, the amendments are unnecessary to secure continuation of the proper and reasonable interests of conservation and recreation bodies. Secondly, they are inappropriate in seeking to forge a direct link between the undertakers' conservation and recreation duties and committees appointed by the NRA. Finally, they are particularly unhelpful in breaking down the integration of all advice in one committee in the way that we propose.
For those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he would agree that the language used in this amendment is a good deal more precise and taut than that set forth in the Bill. I should like particularly to underline the fact that on page 3 at line 10 the Bill states that the persons to be appointed to the proposed committees are solely those who have an interest in the matters under discussion.
There seems to be no requirement for a balance of interests which our amendment at least attempts to provide. Also, neither the Bill nor the amendment provides for any independent members who are free from prior interests. I should have thought that that would be helpful.
It might also be useful to provide—whether in the Bill or by regulations—that regional advisory committees operate by sub-committees. These are all points that I hope the Government will consider with a view to producing a better text at the next stage.
Lord Greenway: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his extensive reply and to my noble friend Lord Hylton for his support. At this late hour I should like to consider carefully what the noble Earl has said. I have noted his remarks that the fears of the boating interests are misplaced and that the Government do not wish to see a proliferation of committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I may possibly return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("advisory").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 26 to 29, 34 and 38. The purpose of this series of amendments is to strengthen the role of the regional committees. I should like to remind the Committee that the functions which the NRA will be taking over from the existing water authorities are all exercised on a regional basis. There is therefore a strong reason for continuing that regional connection.
As the drafting stands, these are purely advisory committees and the authority simply has to consult them and to consider any representation made to it. These amendments suggest that the word "advisory" be removed in order to strengthen the position of the committees and that additional functions be given them so that they can exercise greater authority regionally. These functions are set out in my Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has told the Committee, the purpose of these amendments is to change the nature of the regional rivers advisory committees so that they have a number of specific functions. These additional functions relate to giving its approval for any by-laws to be made by the NRA for pollution prevention under Clause 110, or for navigation under Clause 153; to designating waters for which the NRA would be under a duty to establish minimum acceptable flows; and to agreeing the NRA's programme of anti-pollution works under Clause 111.
I should first like to make clear that the matters identified in Amendment No. 27 are among the matters that we would expect the regional rivers advisory committee to be involved in. But the aspect of this amendment that we do not find acceptable is that it changes the status of the advisory committees and makes it a requirement that the committee should have consented to or agreed some by-law or programme of works before the NRA can carry it out.
I must emphasise that it seems to us essential that the NRA at regional level is answerable to the NRA board through the chief executive. I am sure that on reconsideration the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will agree that it would confuse lines of accountability if there were a set of activities—as proposed in these amendments—for which the NRA at regional level was not answerable to the NRA board but to a separate regional committee. Such an arrangement would, at least in theory, put the regional general manager in the impossible position that he might be required to do something by his regional committee which was inconsistent with the national policy which his chief executive and his board were pursuing.
Of course, this situation is not likely to arise often. We are confident that on most issues, in particular issues like by-laws which are essentially local in nature, the NRA will find invaluable the advice of the regional rivers advisory committee, and would not wish to put forward proposals that were not endorsed by the committee.
128
However, it would in our view in no way affect the value of the advice of the regional rivers advisory committee that it was an advisory committee. To make the committee an executive committee is quite unnecessary and inappropriate. As it stands, the clause recognises the importance of these regional committees while at the same time ensuring proper lines of responsibility of the regional units of the NRA through the chief executive and the board.
Lord Ezra: I certainly hope that situations would not frequently arise where the NRA was at variance with the advice received from a regional committee. That would mean that it was imposing on the region things which those who were selected to represent it in these matters did not agree with. It was to strengthen the regional position that these amendments were introduced. However, having heard what the noble Earl has said, I should like to reflect on the issue and consider whether to come back to it in some other way at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("in accordance with guidelines for the establishment of such committees as shall be issued from time to time by the Secretary of State;").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of the amendment is to provide for statutory guidance to be made available to the National Rivers Authority on the appointment of members to the regional rivers advisory committees. These advisory committees replace the existing water authority regional recreation and conservation committees but have a broader remit relating to all the NRA's functions. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and other conservation bodies, have developed a strong working relationship with the water authorities in respect of water resource management. The society has found its representation on the existing regional recreation and conservation committees to be invaluable in its work on wetland conservation.
As the Bill does not specify the structure of the new regional advisory committees, there is a real danger of gross imbalances occurring in the membership of the advisory committees which may have a limiting effect on the expertise available. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has referred to that. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in Amendment No. 30, asks that members should include,
"persons nominated by or representing voluntary conservation and recreation bodies".
That, of course, I support. It shows that other bodies besides the RSPB are anxious about how these committees will be made up.
By providing statutory guidance to the NRA on the composition of the RRACs, the balance of interest will not be left to chance and will help to reduce regional variations. The Nature Conservancy Council has recommended that the membership of RRACs should be standardised. The adoption of common guidelines would help to meet this recommendation.
The concept of statutory guidelines is not new to the water industry. A precedent already exists in

129
respect of appointments to the water authority consumer committees, which include amenity interests. Section 24A(2) of the Water Act 1983 clearly states:
"In preparing a report under this section"—
on the arrangements for representing consumer and recreational interests—
"a water authority shall have regard to any guidelines issued by the Secretary of State".
Acceptance of the amendment would not create a precedent; rather it would transpose an existing arrangement into the Bill. This is a simple and a very modest amendment. I can see absolutely no reason why the Minister should not accept it. I hope he will. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: We are all grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so succinctly. I remind her that in December 1987 the policy statement on the NRA was issued. In that we proposed that the existing regional recreational and conservation committees be expanded into wider committees, the regional rivers advisory committees. We intend that these will be important committees bringing together all the main river interests— conservation, recreation, industry (including the water supply industry) local government and agriculture. We resist the suggestion, therefore, that the Secretary of State should issue guidelines or regulations on their establishment. These are to be committees of the NRA and surely it is right that it should be for the NRA to select the members to represent effectively the many interests and differing regional concerns.
However, the NRA Advisory Committee has been giving careful consideration to the terms of reference and composition of all its regional committees and will shortly be issuing a document setting out its proposals. I shall make sure that copies are made available to all noble Lords who wish to see it and to all who have taken part in our debates on Clause 2. I am sorry that the document was not available earlier but we issued it as soon as possible. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that it was better to issue it today than later this week or next when our discussions on this subject had passed. I am confident that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell will pay careful regard to all the points made in Committee about the regional committees and that the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee will also welcome comments on the proposals from interested parties.
However, as I have made clear earlier, the fundamental point is that it must be for the NRA to decide on the appropriate constitution and composition of these committees and not the Secretary of State.
Baroness David: Of course, I thank the Minister for his reply and we shall be interested to see the document. Will it be available in the Library tomorrow?
The Earl of Caithness: It should be available now.
Baroness David: I am sorry that I did not know about it before we reached the amendments on Clause 2 because it would have been more helpful. Obviously I shall not go further with the amendment until I have read the document, so at this point I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("consider") and insert ("have regard to").
The noble Lord said: The Minister announced the issuing of a document by the NRA and I imagine that it will make a difference to a number of amendments which have been tabled on today's Marshalled List. However, I do not believe that it will make a difference to Amendment No. 25. We are not concerned with the membership of the regional rivers advisory committees but with the way in which their deliberations are treated. We find to be quite unsatisfactory the fact that the only obligation on the authority is that it should "consider" any representations made to it by the advisory committee.
In the whole gamut of words and phrases used in legislation to deal with the process of consultation and deliberation by public bodies, the word "consider" comes close to the bottom. In other words, it is close to being the weakest possible response that an authority can have to its own regional river advisory committees. In tabling the amendment we believe that we should move at least one step up the ladder towards the phrase "have regard to". It is still possible for the authority to act against the advice of the regional rivers advisory committees even if we use that phrase. However, they must pay at least a little more attention than is implied by the word "consider".
Regardless of the issues of who appoints the members, whether there are statutory guidelines, whether it is a matter for the NRA or whether the NRA properly considers the range of interests which should be represented on the regional advisory committees, if we are to get people of ability to serve on the regional committees, and if they are to be expected to devote a significant amount of time to their duties as members, they must have the feeling that someone is paying significant attention to the work which they do. They must have the feeling that the National Rivers Authority cannot merely consider what they say but must take it into account. We could have used that phrase "take it into account" as opposed to "have regard to" and gone two steps up the ladder. However, they have to be taken seriously. I do not believe that the word "consider" takes them seriously. I hope that the Government will feel that, if they are to have adequate representation and really good members on the regional committees, this amendment is not unacceptable to them. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I should like to support this amendment, having moved amendments to

131
strengthen the role of the advisory committees. I certainly believe that this amendment is a minimum way of achieving that objective. I suppose that "to take note of could be even worse than "consider". "Consider" is one notch up the ladder but "have regard to" or "take into account" is the minimum which we should have in this case so that the advisory committees' views are seriously considered, or I should say "taken into account"? Therefore, I hope that the Government will take this proposal into account and agree to the minor amendment involved.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 25 would require the NRA to "have regard to" rather than to "consider" any representations made to it by an advisory committee.
The amendment would not affect the duties of the NRA with regard to representations of advisory committees. The words "to consider" are the appropriate words to use in this context and are used in relation to representations in many other clauses of this Bill and in other legislation. Indeed I note that in his Amendment No. 41 the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, would have the NRA "consider" the representations of his proposed regional divisions.
Clause 2 makes it a duty of the authority to consult its advisory committees and to consider any representations made by these committees. As a major national body, the NRA will of course give reasonable consideration to any representations made to it by its own advisory committees. It would be in the authority's own interest to do so. Moreover in the annual report required by Clause 146, the NRA will be expected to comment on the functioning of the regional rivers advisory committees and in particular to indicate the major issues on which the committees have been consulted or have offered advice and the action taken on them by the NRA. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, may consider that his amendment is not an addition at this time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have had an opportunity to have a quick skim through the document issued by the National Rivers Authority. I notice that there is no reference whatever to the degree of consideration which the NRA will give the recommendations of its regional advisory committees. Therefore, it is not inappropriate for me to move this amendment. I believe that the Minister's response is interesting but I do not believe that it resolves the issue.
However, it is quite clear that, with the issue of this document of which we were unaware when we tabled the amendments or even when we started to speak to them—and I too should like a copy—the whole question of the regional rivers advisory committees is in the melting pot and will have to be raised again on Report. I believe that it is appropriate to say that I shall not move the other amendments in my name on this matter and to beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 12, after ("question;") insert ("including persons nominated by or representing voluntary conservation and recreation bodies;")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to require the NRA to appoint to the regional rivers advisory committees members drawn from voluntary conservation and recreation bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has just touched on that subject. She reminded us that these regional rivers advisory committees established under Clause 2 of this Bill replace the existing regional recreation and conservation committees set up under the provisions of Section 7 of the Water Act 1983.
Both conservation and recreation bodies are currently represented. The Royal Society for the Nature Conservation (RSNC) and its 48 associated wild life trusts sit on the majority of existing committees and offer practical advice on nature conservation. Similarly, the professional regional staff of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) supports seven of the existing nine committees. Such representation is extremely valuable to the work of conservation bodies.
By way of further example, the existing Thames Water authority's regional recreation and conservation committee includes in its membership the RSPB's regional conservation officer. The conservation officer attends divisional and local sub-groups of the committee where conservation matters are discussed. This enables Thames Water to utilise the expertise of the RSPB in the planning and execution of the full range of its activities.
Indeed, major flood defence works, such as the Maidenhead flood relief scheme, were discussed at the committee. Through site visits and field surveys it was possible for the RSPB to advise Thames Water on how to plan the scheme to be of benefit to river wildlife. The staff of the RSPB can also advise the water authorities on which lengths of river are the best for wildlife and how river engineering works can be carried out in the most sympathetic and beneficial way.
Equally, angling, which is the major sport enjoyed on waters owned or managed by water authorities, is represented through national angling bodies on six of the existing committees, and sailing on at least four. I believe it is fair to say that the water authorities have benefited from the experience and expertise which the voluntary bodies can bring. Therefore, I hope that the new committees will continue to provide a valuable link between the NRA and voluntary bodies. However, I fear that voluntary conservation groups such as the RSPB may be excluded from membership. There is evidence of this in a draft scheme published by Yorkshire Water for its NRA region which excluded all voluntary conservation and recreation groups from its RRAC. This leads me to believe that voluntary bodies may go unrepresented on all 10 of the advisory committees. Such exclusion from the new committees would be unfortunate and likely to leave a wide gap in the expertise available.
Angling is established on well over 300 of the 500 reservoirs to be transferred to private ownership and

133
sailing is allowed on well over 80. Where to a considerable extent these waters are used for the purposes of sport surely it is right that such sports should be represented. We must ensure that the Bill maintains the co-existence of recreation and conservation interests on advisory committees.
I fear that unless a statutory provision is made for conservation and recreation experts to be represented on the new committees there will be no guarantee that the NRA will recruit at the right level and at the right range of expertise required. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Amendment No. 37 is being taken with this amendment, and since I now have my own copy of the National Rivers Authority document I have the advantage of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, in this matter.
It is the case that the NRA is proposing that members should be selected from among areas of interest. These can include conservation and landscape interests, including statutory and voluntary bodies, and recreational interests, including sports councils and special interest groups. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord's amendment, if he trusts the phrase,
"selected from among the following areas of interest",
may be catered for. My amendment goes further to say,
"not less than one-third of such appointments are of persons representative of environmental and recreational interests".
However, as with the previous amendment, I think it is better if we take this document away and consider what amendments are necessary to beef it up a bit, because I feel that is necessary, and that we do so on Report rather than pursue the matter now.
11.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for expressing his concern about conservation, in which both statutory and voluntary bodies are involved. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has just read out, they are catered for in the document produced today by the NRAAC.
Perhaps I may expand that in a little more detail for the Committee. The membership total for the regional rivers advisory committee will be something in the order of 15 to 20. Members will be selected from among the following areas of interest, and some of these we have already discussed today; namely, agriculture, forestry and landowners' interests; conservation and landscape interests, including statutory and voluntary bodies—the very areas that my noble friend Lord Norrie is concerned with—industry and commerce, including abstractors and dischargers and river-dependent industries generally. The membership will also include local government, and it will please the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to see that in print. There will also be national parks authorities and other public bodies, recreational interests including sports councils and special interest groups, water service industries and other interest groups.
I fear that the concerns of my noble friend are not well founded because they are met by the document.
134
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, spoke to Amendment No. 37. That amendment produces a much stricter strait-jacket on the NRA than that suggested in the document. I fully appreciate the method by which he has dealt with it in saying that he needs time for further consideration. I shall be happy to consider it with him.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: Can my noble friend say whether riparian owners are included in that list?
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend's concern is fully met. When he sees the document he should turn to Annex B, which covers the regional fisheries advisory committee. Among those will be riparian owners' associations.
Lord Norrie: I am grateful for my noble friend's explanation. I look forward to reading the document. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 32.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("wholly or mainly")
The noble Earl said: This is an amendment still dealing with the advisory committee. I believe that these committees are of considerable importance. They might have to exert as much influence as they are able over the authority. I was surprised to see that members of the authority would be able to sit on committees such as these which they themselves had created. It seems to be an extraordinary position whereby, admittedly not "wholly or mainly", they can sit on those advisory committees. My amendment is to stop that happening in any way at all. It would be far better if these advisory committees sat, so to speak, by themselves and passed their advice by whatever means they thought best back to the National Rivers Authority.
On occasion they may have to put forward advice that is harsh and unacceptable to the authority. I would hate to feel that they had sitting among them someone who might take the edge off their deliberations and recommendations. I believe it is a fairly straightforward amendment and I hope that my noble friend will feel that it is a reasonable one. It is important in that if it does not go through the world will not be lost, but issues may well be fudged and spoilt before they can be properly brought out into the open and the authority faced with proper and uninfluenced advice. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again, my Amendment No. 32 is linked with this amendment and it will fall if this amendment is agreed to. In any event, the noble Earl's amendment is better than mine. The word "wholly" becomes redundant. I agree with the noble Earl because I believe that there should be an arm's length relationship between the regional advisory committee and the authority. I know that it is not the Government's intention that there should be a major overlap of membership. There should be no overlap at all; otherwise people

135
are wearing two hats and facing both ways. We will not get a coherent view from the whole of the regional advisory committee untainted by membership of the authority. I hope that the Government will recognise that this matter is not affected by the consultative document put forward by the NRA and deserves support on its own merits.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The arm's length argument is a real one. I should have thought that under the circumstances these words could be omitted.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what noble Lords have said on the amendments. We certainly accept that members of these committees should not normally be on the boards of the NRA itself. Indeed, the whole point of the regional rivers advisory committee is to provide the NRA with outside advice. Nevertheless I would put a contrary view to the Committee. Surely it would seem unwise to exclude the possibility of a member of the NRA board being on a RRAC. There may well be board members with strong regional ties who would be well suited to serving on an RRAC as well. Similarly, if a member of an RRAC was appointed to the board of the NRA, these amendments, if passed, would mean that he or she could no longer serve on the rivers authority committee. Surely that is not right. If noble Lords who have spoken for the amendment will consider what I have said, I shall consider what they have said.
The Earl of Radnor: My noble friend seemed to support us strongly to start with and then backed off. The arm's length business is of prime importance. There may be people on the authority who have regional ties or special knowledge, but we are talking about the whole of England and Wales. There will be plenty of expert people with regional ties to go on the advisory committees without going to the authority to, so to speak, borrow a person and spoil the whole concept of advice and advice being accepted or not at arm's length.
My noble friend said that he will go away and think about it, which I hope he will do most seriously. I shall do the same. Meanwhile, it is late at night and I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 35 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) It shall be the duty of the Authority, in making any appointments under this section, to ensure that not less than one quarter of such appointments are of persons representative of local authorities in the region concerned.")
The noble Lord said: For the reasons which have already been expressed I do not propose to move the amendment. However, I hope that the Committee will allow me to say something which I should have said earlier. The Minister introduced this new wild card into the debate very late at night. He said that it was better that it should be introduced now than
136
tomorrow or next week. That is undoubtedly true, but the more I think about the amount of effort that has been put in, not only by noble Lords who have tabled amendments but by organisations advising them, the more I feel how totally unsatisfactory it is that the NRA should produce this consultative document late in the evening of the day on which this part of the Bill was being debated. It is so unsatisfactory that it verges on being a mark of disrespect to this Committee. We are being asked to consider amendments and amendments have been put down. The NRA knew that amendments would be put down and knew that they had been put down. We now have to postpone the substantive consideration of these issues until Report stage.
I hope that the Minister will convey to the chairman of the NRA that at least on this side of the Committee we are seriously dissatisfied with the timing of the document. We feel that, since the document has been under discussion for many months and since the Government's White Paper was produced in December 1987, tnere is no reason at all for it not having been made available to the public and to Members of this place in good time so as to allow all of us to consider its implications when debating the Bill in Committee.
The situation is simply not good enough and I hope the Minister will accept that fact. As I said, in the circumstances, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 36.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey had give notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41.
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause
("Regional divisions.
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority—

(a) to establish and maintain regional divisions of the Authority for the different regions of England and Wales;

(b) to consult the regional division for any region as to any proposals of the Authority relating generally to the manner in which the Authority's functions in that division are to be carried out.

(c) to consider any representations made to it by the division for any region (whether in response to consultation under paragraph (b) above or otherwise) as to the manner in which the Authority's functions are carried out in that region; and

(d) subject to the overall policy and financial control of the Authority to delegate to the division its functions as they relate to that region.

(2) The duty to establish and maintain regional divisions imposed by subsection (1) above is a duty—

(a) to establish and maintain a regional division consisting of not less than six nor more than ten members for each area which the Authority considers it appropriate for the time being to regard as a region of England and Wales for the purposes of this section; and

(b) to ensure that the persons appointed to each such division—

(i) as to half thereof are persons appointed by local authorities situated in whole or part within each said region; and

(ii) as to the remainder are persons appointed by the Authority who appear to the Authority to have an interest in matters likely to be affected by the manner in which the Authority's functions are carried out in the

137
region in question and are persons who have experience of and have shown capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of the Authority.

(c) consist wholly or mainly of persons who are not members of the Authority.").

The noble Lord said: I have not had an opportunity to consider whether the regional structure of the National Rivers Authority, as outlined in its consultative document, is adequate to deal with the point made in this new clause. Therefore, in the circumstances, I think it would be better if I were not to move this amendment. However, I should add the firm proviso that I may well have to return to the matter on Report.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

Avon Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.