Lords Sitting of 18 May 1989

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Air Traffic Distribution: Scotland
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now withdraw the order which compels civil aircraft operating a service between Glasgow Airport and airports in North America to land and take off also from Prestwick Airport on both outward and inward flights.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on 8th May my right honourable friend announced that the existing policy for the Scottish lowland airports is to continue and he subsequently has made new traffic distribution rules to give effect to that policy. Prestwick therefore remains the gateway airport for intercontinental services to and from Scotland.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, when my noble friend next has the onerous duty of replying on behalf of the Department of Transport will he insist on getting from it a better answer than that? Is he aware that the Scottish courts, through Lord Dervaird, have ruled that that order is outwith the powers of the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State at the Perth party conference asked why an airline should not fly between any two destinations that it chooses? Why should it not?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not surprised at my noble friend's lack of enthusiasm for the reply that I gave. I am afraid that it was the best that I could manage today. I shall try to do better in the future. The recent ruling of the Scottish Court of Session dealt with the traffic distribution rules through which effect is given to the lowland airport policy and not with the merits of the policy itself, which must of course be a matter for the Government.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that even those of us who are enthusiastic about encouraging Prestwick think that that is an absolutely dotty way of doing it? If the Government's reasoning is that they will improve communications to Prestwick, which are far from good, can he say whether they have started the programme, what improvements they will make and when they may be completed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Prestwick is a fine airport. I hope to see it well used in its own right. On access, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced the intention of improving Prestwick's surface access. The Scottish Office will discuss with BR and Strathclyde PTE the best way to improve rail access, including the
1282
possibility of a station at the airport. There are also plans to improve the airport's road links. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in welcoming that initiative.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, what will be the increased cost per passenger mile to aircraft flying to the eastern seaboard of the United States as a result of making that unnecessary landing; and how might that be reflected in ticket prices?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have those figures with me. Some figures appeared in a national newspaper on Friday, but I have not been able to confirm whether they were accurate.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, may I have a written answer?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, how does that policy square with the comment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment at the recent Scottish Tory Party conference that it was a matter of the greatest importance to the whole of Scottish industry and commerce that artificial and unnecessary barriers to imports to and exports from Scotland, such as the national dock labour scheme, should be got rid of? How do we square that statement with the artificial preservation of the barriers against airports other than Prestwick?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a slightly different question. The Question on the Order Paper refers to a charter airline which has to land at Prestwick on its way from Glasgow to Florida.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a growing feeling in Scotland that the present situation of nominating Prestwick as the sole gateway airport for North American traffic is making everyone look ridiculous and that the Scottish press and everyone else is convinced that it is silly? Will the Minister convey to his right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport that if they intend to continue with that policy they should start to give the Scottish people some convincing reasons for it? Until now we have had no reasons. We have been given a bonus in terms of the fact that there may be a rail link and that in 10 years' time there may be a new motorway, but that does not remove the feeling that the whole thing is preposterous.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall of course convey the views that have been expressed today to my right honourable friends. There has been much debate about this matter and the need for a review, with arguments put on both sides. The arguments on the other side have been just as strong.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite the comment of the noble Lord,

1283
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the Government's decision is much welcomed by thousands of residents in the West of Scotland? It would be wrong for environmental reasons to have a city centre airport, such as Renfrew, carrying additional transatlantic traffic when there is an excellent transatlantic airport within 25 miles.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am of course most grateful to the noble Lord. He confirms the fact that there are arguments on both sides.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is there not in fact transatlantic traffic going into Glasgow? The only problem is that it has to go via this other place.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, which other place? Long-haul services do not have to start in Glasgow. There are other ways of organising flight patterns so that transatlantic flights can start from Prestwick.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, how many times in a year may Glasgow airport be shut? Prestwick, because it is almost totally clear of any kind of fog, enjoys a great advantage.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not have the figures, but I agree with the noble Earl that Prestwick has an extremely good climate for flying into and out of.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that the most hazardous part of any aircraft flight is during take-off or landing? Most accidents occur at those times. Will he further bear in mind that any unnecessary take-offs or landings double the risks?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the environmental considerations that is taken into account when we look at the future of Glasgow airport.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, can the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that the Secretary of State for Defence's majority of 187 might be a factor in the Government's calculations?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I believe that that is highly unlikely.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who criticise this odd, if not crazy, decision have no hostility towards Prestwick airport? I have the greatest admiration for it. But is he aware that, by making it a compulsory handicap for civil airlines which do not wish to use Prestwick, it is damaging the airline industry's general feeling of respect for it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all I can say is that I shall ensure that my right honourable friend reads and listens to what has been said in the debate.

Legal Services: US Comparisons
3.9 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in preparing their Green Papers on the legal profession they paid regard to the evidence of the United States Chief Justice to the Royal Commission on Legal Services on the proportion of damages awarded by United States courts which is absorbed by the costs of the contingent fee system and on the delays caused by the employment of inadequately trained advocates.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, in seeking to frame the proposals I paid particular attention to the work that had been done by the Royal Commission on Legal Services. Chief Justice Warren Burger was a witness and I paid particular attention to his testimony.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. Does he not agree that the comments of the Chief Justice of the United States were very significant, as they have a combined profession there? He said that the contingency fees of inadequately trained lawyers probably took about half of the damages awarded. Will my noble and learned friend look very carefully at the matter of contingency fees? There is more and more opinion coming from the United States that such fees increase costs, lead to ambulance-chasing and the stirring up of litigation, often frivolous and fraudulent.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Civil Justice Review recommended that we consider further the question of arrangements such as contingency fees. One of the Government's Green Papers has attempted to do that. We have received a great number of responses and I shall take the observations of my noble and learned friend as a further response. A number of different views have been expressed on the various options there put forward.
So far as concerns improperly trained advocates, I have sought to take account of that in the proposals in the Green Papers. Many of the responses are also directed to that question.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us who are mere laymen are amazed and astounded at the tremendous debate which took place in the House from nine o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night? No profession other than the legal profession would have organised the debate on a discussion paper in that way. It is an amazing tribute to the trade union movement.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord considers that the standard of the debate was high. I personally found it extremely useful.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend note that the professions

1285
welcomed his remarks the other day that he regarded their responses as constructive? He indicated that he regarded them as not being involved in a trade union activity but seeking to serve the public. Does my noble and learned friend agree that the responses of the professions are directed towards precisely that end of seeking to provide the best service to the public?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend quotes exactly what I said. I do not believe that I made any reference to trade unions in my response. However, I accept that the rest of what he said is the substance of my remarks and that the responses are extremely full and constructive. Naturally they are not all in the same direction. The question now is, in the light of the responses, what is the correct direction in which to move?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, in the light of the massive attendance of his colleagues from the legal trade union at the debate on the Green Papers, last Friday none of his colleagues was available when we discussed the fate of their clients in the debate on the report on the parole system by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, a number of my noble and learned friends were present on 7th April and contributed to the debate. I myself was here at the start of the debate on the report on the parole system which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I certainly do not recollect noticing that any of my noble and learned friends managed to be present on that occasion.
Lord Benson: My Lords, for the removal of doubt, perhaps I may say that the question I ask is put in a helpful and not a critical spirit. Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had a chance to read the submission made to him dated 26th April by Lloyd's of London on contingency fees? That submission supports the evidence referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not think that under those conditions it would be prudent to modify or amend the statement which he made to the House on 16th May at col. 1039 of Hansard:
"Therefore, at the moment I am simply claiming that these proposals, if implemented, would not increase costs"?
Does the noble and learned Lord not think it particularly important to modify or amend that statement, having regard to the fact that two days ago he also said that no research had been carried out by the Government before the Green Papers were issued?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is difficult to paraphrase exactly what I said two days ago. I said that my aim in the Green Papers was to propose the removal of unnecessary restrictions. The removal of unnecessary restrictions would not increase costs.
Of course I entirely accept that the debate in relation to the Green Papers is as to whether or
1286
not all or any of the matters covered in them are unnecessary restrictions. There is the question of whether the present restriction on contingency fees is necessary or unnecessary in the interests of the standards of conduct in the profession.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Question on the Order Paper relates to contingency fees does my noble and learned friend not agree that potential defendants are at least as entitled to a fair crack of the whip as potential plaintiffs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly agree with that. It is one reason why the speculative action on the Scottish model is perhaps better than the contingency fee arrangement in America, because it is available to potential defenders as well as to potential pursuers in that country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with respect to what I think is called the Family Division, does the noble and learned Lord know that very often families in conflict with one another go to court? They then find themselves greatly burdened with solicitors' expenses. One report which I read said that that was often the cause of suicides. Will that be examined in the context of the Green Papers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the overall objective of all the proposals which I have sought to make deals with costs and accessibility. I aim to avoid unnecessary costs. Sometimes there are of course great difficulties in family litigation. Among the actions that were initiated by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was a study of the conciliation service. That study has recently reported and a good deal of discussion is taking place on the report. As often happens on these occasions, the views on the conclusions of the report are not unanimous. However, that is an important development which I hope we shall be able to take forward.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, has my noble and learned friend considered the increased costs involved in liability insurance in the event of the introduction of the contingency fee system? Does he also realise that, if the cost of liablity insurance is increased, that cost would be directly attributable to the general cost of living and the cost of every single item produced either by the manufacturing or the service industries?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I am aware of the general effect on costs of the producers of goods having to bear the costs of litigation. I have that in mind. One also has to bear in mind the rights of those who may be injured as a result of products. As usual, it is a question of balancing the various interests. I am sure that the contribution of Lloyd's of London to the responses, as well as the other contributions we have received, will help us to reach a just balance in the result.

Legal Services: US Evidence
3.18 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell Lord Rawlinson of Ewell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will place in the Library the evidence of the Chief Justice of the United States (Hon. Warren Burger) to the Royal Commission on Legal Services on July 22nd 1977 on the relative time taken by a case in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the evidence given by the Chief Justice to the Royal Commission on Legal Services will be placed in the Library today.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for doing that. When he gave evidence to the English Royal Commission, was not the Chief Justice of the United States in effect saying "Don't go the path of the American administration of law. Follow your own path"? Is it not a fact that he also stated that a case which takes a day or perhaps a day-and-a-half to be tried in this country takes five to 10 days in the United States? Is that not something which my noble and learned friend will look at very closely indeed before he advises his friends in the Cabinet about any legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall most certainly consider that. I noted in the debate that took place on the consultation paper concerning the Scottish legal profession that someone quoted my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who was of course quoting another. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone had said, "Reform? Reform? … Are things not bad enough already?" I am certainly not seeking to promote reforms which will make matters worse in this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend has attributed that witticism to me, is he aware that the true author was the late Mr. Justice Astbury?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords. I am aware of that. However, I think the quotation was attributed to my noble and learned friend in the report of the debate on the Scottish paper.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that Chief Justice Warren Burger, during his many years as Chief Justice of the United States, paid a number of visits to this country, had discussions with the judiciary here and became thoroughly familiar with our own laws of civil procedure? Therefore, he was in a uniquely qualified position to compare the two systems and draw the conclusions he did.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, certainly the retired Chief Justice of the United States was very familiar with the system here and that on the other side of the Atlantic. However, I am not absolutely certain whether he was uniquely familiar with it. I
1288
have had an opportunity of discussing my Green Papers with Chief Justice Warren Burger since they were published. As I informed your Lordships some time ago, along with the Speaker of another place I was awarded an honorary doctorate by the College of William and Mary, of which Chief Justice Warren Burger is the chancellor. I had the opportunity of a very full evening's discussion with him on the matters raised by the Green Papers.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in view of the massive controversy which the proposals in the Green Papers have raised, and bringing the matter somewhat nearer home, does this not point to the necessity for a White Paper to be issued before any steps are taken to legislate on the proposals in the Green Papers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble and learned Lord at the conclusion of the debate to which some reference has already been made, the precise form of our announcement will depend upon the content of it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, when will this sombre, oracular announcement be made as regards the decision-making?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I again intimated on that occasion, it is my hope that we shall be able to make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess, which I hope will not be unduly delayed.

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 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1989 will be taken.

Water Bill
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 49 [Powers to disconnect service pipes and cut off supplies]:
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 318A:
Page 55, line 37, at beginning insert—

("in the case of a supply provided under section 46 above").

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 318C and 320C. These amendments have been grouped with the two amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey; namely, Amendments Nos. 318B and 320ZA. I imagine the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will speak to those amendments at the same time.
My amendments seek to ensure that whenever a consumer is in arrears with payments, no disconnection of the water supply will be made without the undertaker having first obtained a court order. The code of practice on disconnections is to be included in the licence to supply. That is certainly welcomed. Indeed, the code of practice recognises the function of the county court in dealing with customers in default. However, there are two exemptions which I find disturbing. I shall read the relevant paragraph contained in the procedure that the water companies must follow before cutting off supply. The third paragraph of that procedure states:
"However, we may not issue a County Court summons where (i) you have previously been the subject of Court proceedings for the recovery of unpaid water charges, or (ii) you have broken an agreement with us to avoid or settle legal proceedings for the recovery of water charges".
I believe these exemptions specifically exclude the very people who may be in the greatest financial difficulty and most in need of the court's protection. It is surely unfair to exclude consumers who in the past have had an order made in the county court for water charge arrears with which they have perhaps complied. It is probable that these are people with low incomes. They may be single parents with families, elderly people living alone, or disabled people. One could go on and on for ever. Circumstances could well determine that these people, in striving to make ends meet, could find themselves again with water charge arrears. It is unthinkable that their water supply could be cut off without the court again examining the whole of their total indebtedness in deciding how best their commitments can be met. I think it is important to consider their total indebtedness.
The second exemption excludes a person who has never had the opportunity to have the county court consider his circumstances. It is obviously preferable for cases of arrears to be dealt with before they come to the county court, if possible, and for a consumer to try to negotiate and agree on repayment rates with the water undertaker, so avoiding court costs. It is understandable that consumers may wish to do that. However, they sometimes enter unwise agreements. They may attempt to repay Peter by robbing Paul, and eventually find that that cannot be done. Again they are forced to break the agreement they have made with the water undertaker. Surely in this case it is right that these agreements should be examined by the court and the total indebtedness of the individual considered before any disconnection of the supply occurs.
The citizens advice bureaux, the National Consumer Council and many other organisations are deeply concerned about these exemptions and the codes of practice. There is evidence to show
1290
that the number of disconnections has been rising steadily over the past three years. The citizens advice bureaux can give many instances of the considerable hardship and misery caused by some of these disconnections. These amendments may help reverse that rising trend.
Water is a vital commodity. It is vital for health and for life itself. No one should be deprived of a supply on account of his inability to pay for it at the time of receiving it. I feel very strongly about this. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some favourable response. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wise, in general terms, and also to speak to my Amendments Nos. 318B and 320ZA. Those amendments approach the same problem from a slightly different standpoint but one which I hope will gain the approval of the Government and/or the Committee.
In moving his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said rightly that the number of disconnections of water has already increased. That is certainly the case, but it has not increased to anything like the same extent as disconnections of gas in the year to March 1988, which was the first year after privatisation of British Gas. In that year disconnections of gas rose by 25 per cent. over the previous year and by 60 per cent. over the preceding year. It is clear that, because of the change in priorities forced on the undertakers concerned, privatisation brings with it increased pressure for disconnection. Any increase that has already occurred in water disconnections must be expected to become very much worse as privatisation approaches and as the date of privatisation passes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, rightly said, disconnection of water is a very much more serious matter than disconnection of gas or electricity or of any other form of energy, serious though that is. For almost any form of energy there is a substitute. For gas there would be electricity; for electricity presumably there would be candles or paraffin. For water there is no substitute. As soon as water ceases to be available to a household, that household is in a worse position than it would have been in the Middle Ages, worse than in a period when people were able to draw their water from wells or from rivers because the wells no longer exist and the rivers are polluted. We are reverting to a position with a degree of primitiveness which is difficult to imagine.
Incidentally, if anyone thinks that neighbours will be allowed to help out in those circumstances, the Bill contains specific provisions to prevent neighbours from helping out those whose water has been disconnected.
The situation is serious and will become significantly worse, not only because water is essential to life and health but because the pressure on families most in need is increasing for other reasons. The pressure is increasing because the conditions of social security provision in this country have increased that pressure over the past few years. I am not an expert on the subject and I do not intend

1291
to go into a great deal of detail, but it is clear that changes in social security payments, particularly since April 1988, have made a significant difference to the ability of the poorest families in our country to deal with their bills for essential items such as water.
Before April 1988 there was a system which amounted in most cases to direct payment of water charges by the benefit authorities on behalf of most supplementary benefit claimants. The Committee will recall that half a million income support claimants, as they are now called, received no increase at all in April 1988. Another half a million received increases of less than their full cost of living increases because their benefits were frozen or restricted under what were called the transitional protection provisions. At the same time, in 1988 there were swingeing reductions in housing benefit which affected the ability of those poorest families to pay their bills for essential services. That meant that water, like other essentials, had to be paid for by forgoing food and clothing and other items which one might regard as essential but which would have to be sacrificed if water was to be available.
From April 1988 not only was the specific allowance for water rates within supplementary benefit abolished but a number of housing authorities and housing associations stopped acting as agents for the collection of water charges for the water authority and left their tenants in the position of having to face the water supplier directly. The Government claim that compensation has been made in income support to equal average water rates. Of course nobody pays average water rates; they pay their own water rates, which is a rather different matter.
However, even if one accepted the concept of average water rates, the Government are now in effect backing away from the claim that compensation has been adequately calculated to deal with the cost of water rates. In January 1988 the Government were prepared to say in reply to a Parliamentary Question that there was a figure for compensation which matched the average. In January 1989, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from Mr. Dennis Turner MP, the ministerial line was that there was no specific figure.
Those changes in the social security system intensify the problem described by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. They intensify the difficulties which the poorest families, as he rightly described them, will have in paying their water charges, whatever form those charges take.
Perhaps I may comment on the noble Lord's specific remedy that no disconnection should take place until the matter has been to a county court. There are many good arguments in favour of that proposal which have good precedents. Before a matter can go to the county court there will have to be some form of debt counselling, because these people are not only failing to pay their water rates; they are failing to pay a number of bills of which water rates are only one. The county court will have to take into account all of a family's debts. It will have to take responsibility for negotiating affordable
1292
repayment rates for all of the debts, not simply the water rate debts. Water authorities and water companies cannot be expected to involve themselves in debts other than those for water. County courts can and should do so. That is why it is better that the matter should go through the county court.
At the same time there is a strong argument that the water undertakings should be obliged to take the initiative in providing easier methods of payment of water charges: for example, payment by instalments, by stamps, paying-in books, or prepayment meters. The code of practice on disconnection does not provide for that. It puts the onus for finding a method to pay on the customer and not on the water undertaking.
We welcome the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee two weeks ago that the code of practice on disconnections would become enforceable. We understand that it is proposed that that should happen by means of a condition in the water undertaking's licence However, even if the code of practice is to become enforceable—and I am not satisfied at the moment that the government proposals for enforceability are good enough—the code of practice itself is not good enough because it does not include the provisions to which I have already referred. It does not deal with what ought to be the responsibility of the water undertakings to make it easier for their customers to pay charges in a way which they can afford on a more regular, instalment basis.
What happens when there is no reference to the county court and the county court cannot take responsibility? Enforcement and disconnection tend to take place when the companies disconnect someone who has already received a court order for non-payment of water rates or who has broken an agreement. Those people who already have court orders against them or who break agreements are precisely those who have been so intimidated by the threat of disconnection that they make unrealistic proposals to their creditors for repayment. Then, inevitably, as soon as someone else comes along and says, "You owe us money", they break those agreements.
All those factors lead us to think that the reference to the county court proposed in the noble Lord's amendment should at the very least find the support of the Government and the Committee. But, as will become clear, our amendments go further than that. We say that there should be no power to disconnect and that subsection (8) of Clause 49 should be deleted. That may seem to be an extreme position, but, if one puts it in the context of public health legislation, it is not an extreme position at all. There is still adequate provision for the water undertakings to secure that they get their money without that final sanction of disconnection. They could still install, for example, coinless pre-payment meters if they were inclined to do so. They could still make arrangements—with or without the benefit of debt counsellors, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux or any of the other people who are concerned with the serious problem of family poverty—in order to secure that they get their money.

1293
However, we argue that in a piece of public health legislation—that is what we are concerned with here for that is, in a sense, what the Bill is—the threat of disconnection is entirely inappropriate and should be taken off the face of the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Wise, decides to pursue his amendment to the vote, we shall certainly support it. If, on the other hand, he decides not to do so, I should give notice that we may feel it necessary to pursue our own amendments to the vote.
Lord Blyth: I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, to stop water being disconnected without a court order. Perhaps I may present to the Committee a scenario in which a computer has spat out a disconnection order. It may concern a mother, perhaps in a high-rise flat, with children and babies but no water to wash them and a blocked lavatory because there is no water to flush it. Do we not have, both as a Chamber and as a nation, enough decency and humanity to ensure that that situation cannot arise without a court order? I implore the Government to accept the amendment or something similar and the Committee, should it find it necessary, to vote for it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to take on board a further aspect of this matter. Clause 49 provides that:
"a water undertaker may disconnect a service pipe which for the purposes of providing a supply of water to any premises is connected with any water main of that undertaker, or may otherwise cut off a supply of water to any premises".
It then gives the circumstances in which that may occur and states that:
"the occupier of the premises—

(i) is liable…to pay charges due to the undertaker in respect of the supply of water to those premises".

The point that I want the noble Lord to take on board is that this matter concerns a retailer who will be given, by law, a power to cut off the supply of his commodity, i.e. water. There are very few other suppliers or retailers who have that power. We are talking here about people in desperate straits and for whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Wise, rightly said, the non-payment of a water bill is probably one of a number of non-payments. If one takes the whole of the retail trade, there are a great many other credit givers.
We are concerned about the way in which the Bill as drafted, if the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and my noble friend are not incorporated, will give a retailer—that is all a water undertaker will be, although he will be a retailer of a precious commodity—the power, under law, to cut off a supply. That case has been very well made by the noble Lord and by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. That is a special privilege for water companies. I believe that the noble Lord has a case to make. I very much hope that he will say sufficient for the noble Lord and my noble friend to consider whether they will press their amendments. But the case must be made why retailers of water should be placed in a special position with regard to the punitive and draconian measures that they can take in comparison with other retailers.
Lord Addington: We on these Benches wholeheartedly support the sentiments encapsulated within this group of amendments. It seems absolutely ridiculous to be enabled to cut off such a basic, natural resource as water, which is essential to all forms of life. As has already been stated, it is virtually impossible to live in anything like a vaguely civilised manner without water. I can only say that we shall give our full support to the amendments if they are put to a vote.
Lord Alport: I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wise. I happen to live very near one of the main installations of one of the statutory water companies and I therefore know a little about it. It was recently taken over by a very good and admirable French company. For over 150 years the company had been most efficient and efficiently run, providing water for east London—the poorest part of London—and west Essex where there has been a good deal of unemployment and deprivation in the past.
With the new shareholders coming into the picture, new criteria have no doubt been used by the board of directors. It may therefore be a coincidence that within a relatively short time—a few weeks, or two or three months—of the new shareholders taking over control of the company, 18,000 final notices, with a threat to withdraw the water supply immediately from those who had not paid their bill, were issued. Of course one should pay one's water bill. It is not always the most popular bill, and it must be paid once or twice a year, but it should be paid.
Thinking of the circumstances of the part of the county which that admirable company supplies and knowing many of the social problems that exist there, I should have thought we would be far better advised to ensure that there should be, so to speak, the judical or legal sieve of the county courts. We could therefore ensure protection in circumstances in which a person will be deprived—perhaps quite legitimately by the water company for not paying his water dues—of one of the essentials of life. As the noble Lord, Lord Wise, said, there is no alternative supplier of water than the water companies. It would therefore be a wise thing to do.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A wise thing!
Lord Alport: That is a compliment to my noble friend. It would be a wise thing to do in both senses of the word. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I can assure the Government and my noble friend the Minister that this is one of the most sensitive issues that have come before the Chamber with regard to the future reputation of the Government. If the proposal goes wrong—in the sense that a great many people are deprived of that essential part of the normal life of a family in this country as a result of financial conditions in circumstances which may perhaps in a year or two's time be rather different from those that we have at the moment—the Government's reputation will be greatly damaged. I therefore hope that they will accept this amendment or introduce their own

1295
amendment along the lines of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. I believe that the proposition to cut off a person's supply of water in the event of non-payment is one of the most uncivilised proposals that I have ever heard. When I served in the other place I often came across people who had not paid their electricity or gas bills. I used to go to see them, and their condition, deprived of the means of light, heat and cooking, was dire. But what on earth will be their condition if they have no water either? Frankly it is difficult for me to find words to describe the disgusting squalor in which such a family would have to live.
I came a little late to the debate and perhaps this point has already been made, but let us not forget that it is not only a matter of supplying water for drinking and washing but of supplying water for sewerage purposes as well. One can imagine the conditions prevailing in a house in which there is no running water and therefore no means to flush away the sewage. What on earth is the kind of civilisation that would contemplate such a situation?
I was a member of the Reading County Borough Council Water Committee and later a member of the Thames Valley Water Board. We never cut off anyone's water supply. There were other means of redressing the fault and getting debts paid. One of them included going to court and obtaining an order for distraint. That is quite different from cutting off people's water.
If the Minister will not listen to the pleas that have been made this afternoon, I hope that this Committee will indeed agree to one or other of the amendments before it, because it would be a national disgrace should this Chamber, cognisant as it is of the feelings and needs of ordinary people, not do something to rectify the matter.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to follow through from the remarks of my noble friend but take a slightly different line. If the Government are not prepared to accept the inhumanity involved in this measure, surely they must recognise that there are laws to deal with matters of public health when there is no water supply available even for sewerage.
I can recollect the case of a man who lived in a very expensive house in the town of Surbiton in Surrey, a Tory part of the country. He must have had a brain storm or something, but the only way that entry could be gained to his house in order to deal with the difficulty was by exercising powers under the public health Acts, which, generally speaking, state that when there is no water available, particularly to deal with the sewerage, it constitutes an action in contravention of the public health Acts. Surely that situation still prevails.
Leaving aside the inhumanity involved, which one can hardly think of without feeling a sense of revulsion, how does it affect the relationship of the one house to the others immediately adjacent to it?
1296
Particularly in built up areas, one house is very much connected to the neighbouring houses as regards the water supply. Surely the Government have thought about that. It seems quite extraordinary that they should introduce such a measure. I should like to underline what the noble Lord opposite said. If the Government want to lose votes, this is the most certain way for them to do it. It is even more certain than acting upon the doctors and the health service. I do not know why we bother to warn them or advise them; it is not to our advantage. But we speak for the people.
This is a very serious matter. I plead with the Government that if they do not have regard to the inhumanity of this measure, let them take note that the public health Acts are very specific in this area.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to make one comment on this point. We are referring back to Clause 46, which concerns the supply of water for non-domestic purposes. I must point out in bringing in Clause 46 that the people who have been mentioned so far are those who will be involved in water supply for domestic purposes. I think that that point is worth making.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find it very odd that anyone should believe that cutting off the water supply from an individual or a family is the best or even a good way of encouraging them to pay the bill. I was astonished to hear the suggestion made this afternoon that a neighbour who helps to supply water to a person in that situation would himself be committing an offence. I put to the Committee that neighbours will in fact rally round, take hosepipes along and buckets of water and fill kettles. The result will be a major local row but it will not have the effect of ensuring payment of bills.
I should have thought that going to court or using the method of attachment of wages which has been so widely and effectively used would be a much more sensible way of extracting money, albeit over a long period, and perhaps in relation to other debts accumulated by that person. It cannot be in the interests of the water undertakers to use such draconian means which will bring upon them the ire of the whole of the local population.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may say a word in explanation to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. The substantial amendments refer to Clause 45, which deals with domestic water supply. The first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 318A and 318B, exclude non-domestic suppliers under Clause 46 from the prohibition on disconnection. If the noble Earl will look again at that, I think he will find that, although there may be technical defects, this is not one of them.
Lord Wolfson: This is a very sensitive and human issue which concerns an indispensable commodity. I think that the case has been very well put by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and other Members of the Committee. I wish to support this amendment. I hope that the Government will give very careful consideration to what has been said in all parts of

1297
the Chamber and, as has been stated, will either bring forward their own amendment or accept this one.
Baroness Blatch: There is considerable sympathy for the case being put. However, I should like to interject a note of balance into the discussion because so far it has been very one-sided. It is important to realise that this is an absolute situation. There shall be no disconnections of water for domestic purposes. I know that the exemption has been made for non-domestic purposes.
I am concerned that at the end of the day, in addition to having a very real concern for the people who have been described in this debate—and I have every concern for them—I should wish to see the most stringent code of practice possible applied and every possible measure taken to see that people are not left without a water supply and that bills are paid with assistance of one kind or another. However, this measure denies the water companies the option of a last resort in the case of anybody, even habitual non-payers who have not paid not because of reasons given so far in the debate but because they simply will not pay. If there is no last resort sanction, in my view we shall see an increase in the number of people who do not meet their bills not because of the circumstances in which they find themselves but because they know that whatever they do disconnection will not be a course of action that is open to the water companies.
I believe that that point should at least be made considering the amount of sympathy there has been in the debate, which I support, so far.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: One speaks about the last resort, but that is not a simple matter for the person involved. It is easy to say but when someone comes and turns off the water, it must seem almost like the end of the world. I speak as a magistrate. We find so often that quite considerable fines are imposed in the magistrates' courts and the person is brought before the court time and again to try to obtain the money from him. It is cheaper to bring him back and forth to the court to try to obtain the money than to send him to prison.
When we speak of non-payment, we have to realise that many people do not have enough money to go round each week. It is as simple as that. One only has to miss one's housing benefit for two weeks, for some reason or another, for large debts to arise. It might not be one's fault, but simply that the money has not come through the normal channels. One finds this where a man may have taken up a job for two, three or four months. All his benefits are cut off because he has obtained a low-paid job. When that finishes after three, four or six months, he does not go straight back on to the benefits that he previously received. He has to start all over again going through all the benefits procedure. It is about a fortnight or three weeks before he receives state benefit again.
That is the problem. A person may get into considerable debt, and it is not his fault. We are often told that ours is a caring community. I should
1298
have thought that the last thing any government or official would do would be to turn the water off.
Let us take an example. The electricity and gas boards have been in a great deal of trouble because they have turned off the electricity or gas of elderly people. It has been found that they were in very serious or dire circumstances. The electricity and gas boards were rapped over the knuckles for turning gas and electricity off from the mains outside. These utilities also have had to solve the problem of people who cannot pay their bills. Electricity and gas are cut off in very few cases because these services have made other arrangements for the collection of the money. It might be over a longer period. Perhaps the Government can consider how the gas and electricity industries have been able to tackle this problem, and perhaps some solution can be found along the lines that those two utilities have used.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): Clause 49 sets out the limited circumstances in which a water undertaker is able to cut off supplies of water for domestic and non-domestic purposes. The undertaker has powers to do so to carry out necessary work, for non-payment of charges and at the request of the consumer.
The effect of Amendment No. 318B would be to preclude disconnection of domestic customers for non-payment. Amendment No. 318C, however, would enable an undertaker to disconnect a domestic customer for non-payment of water charges only where the customer had failed to comply with a court order requiring the amounts due. He or she must have been served with at least 14 days' notice of disconnection but despite that have still not paid.
Amendment No. 318A is consequential to that. Amendment No. 320ZA would have the effect of removing the requirement on the undertaker to notify the local authority within 48 hours of cutting off a supply to an inhabited house. This is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 318B, which seeks to disallow any disconnections of domestic water supplies except for the purposes of necessary works or at the request of the customer.
Amendment No. 320C would, as an alternative to Amendment No. 318C, provide that before disconnection takes place for non-payment of water charges it should be the county court that has the sole jurisdiction of the charges due. In other words, the county court and not the undertaker would decide how these charges should be paid before the undertaker could proceed to disconnection. It is our policy that disconnection of supply for domestic customers should be very much a matter of last resort for companies dealing with that small minority of customers who can pay their charges but refuse to do so.
My honourable friend the Minister for water welcomed in another place the water industry's revisions to its disconnection code of practice when they were announced in February last as the code provided important new customer safeguards. These were: first, making clear that direct payments may

1299
be made by the DSS from income support benefits; secondly, providing for a seven-day final notice of arrears of debt; thirdly, making disconnection normally contingent upon county court judgment for debt; and finally, extending the minimum period of notice of disconnection from seven to 14 days.
These safeguards supplemented those already contained in the existing code of practice which provides for special attention to be given to the needs of the aged and vulnerable, explains where help and advice can be obtained and refers to the instalment arrangements which can be agreed to pay off arrears of debt. This revised code was much stronger than anything previously enjoyed by the water consumer and is unsurpassed by any other utility. As I shall say in a moment, however, we now feel able to go even further.
Clause 49 provides that an undertaker is not able to cut off a customer for non-payment of charges where the customer disputes his liability to pay except where, first, the undertaker has obtained a judgment against the customer under subsection (4)(a); or, secondly, where the customer has broken an agreement with the undertaker to avoid or settle legal proceedings for the recovery of those charges entered into since he disputed his liability to pay. This is under subsection (4)(b). The disconnection code of practice covers all disconnections for non-payment and therefore supplements these Bill provisions. Each appointed company is to be required under condition G of the model instrument of appointment to prepare such a code and to submit it to the director general. The condition also requires the appointed company with every demand for payment of charges to draw the attention of domestic customers to the existence of the code in its revised form and how they may inspect or obtain a copy.
I am happy to say that we have today announced a further strengthening of the disconnections code of practice. The privatised water companies will in almost all cases now be required to seek recovery of debt in the county court before taking action to disconnect a customer. Under our revised proposals the only exception, apart from the special circumstances provided for in subsection (4)(b) which I described earlier, will be where a customer has been subject to previous court proceedings, and the court has found in the company's favour, and the charges still remain unpaid. This change follows those already announced by my noble friend Lord Caithness to your Lordships on 4th May whereby the principles of the disconnection procedure will be written into the terms of appointment of each company, with each company's own code being approved by the director general.
These two announcements, taken together, represent a major improvement for the domestic customers which is without precedent in any other utility. Unlike under the industry's revised code, therefore, customers will be entitled to county court consideration of their circumstances even where they have broken a repayment agreement, except for the special circumstances in subsection (4)(b), and even though they have been subject to previous court proceedings provided that they have complied with
1300
the terms of the judgment. This meets the points raised in another place by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and others that even the industry's revised code would discriminate against those in multiple debt.
We have therefore arrived at a procedure which is to all intents and purposes consistent with what my noble friend Lord Wise seeks to achieve by his Amendments Nos. 318A, 318C and 320C. Let me repeat that in almost all circumstances, before proceeding to disconnection, the undertaker will have obtained a court judgment for arrears of debt and those arrears remain yet unpaid.
The only real distance between my noble friend and myself is that his procedure under Amendment No. 318C is made enforceable through the Bill, while under our proposals the principles of the disconnection procedure which we have announced are enforceable through the licence. The licence is enforceable through the Bill. We believe that our version has the merit of being capable of modification and development by the director general, so that even greater customer protection could be achieved if necessary.
However, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in removing under Amendment No. 318B the right of a company as a matter of last resort to disconnect a domestic customer for non-payment, is advocating what amounts to a free water policy. In the experience of the water industry, a small minority of customers choose not to pay their water charges even after a county court order has been obtained. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment explained in another place, for this minority the water undertakers must retain their right as a last resort to disconnect supply. If not, the consequence would be an increase in the number of customers who do not pay and an increase in the charges for those who do.
I find that the dropping of the requirement under Amendment No. 320ZA to notify the local authority of disconnections is curious since it is the fact rather than the cause of the disconnection which is relevant. Even if disconnection of domestic customers was not allowed, it would still be relevant for the local authority to be notified of disconnections for other reasons in order to protect public health.
In conclusion, it may be helpful if I compare the disconnection procedure that we are proposing in the Bill and under the licence with present practice. First, and most importantly, instead of the undertaker being able to disconnect a domestic water supply because of non-payment without going through the courts, it will now in virtually every case have to take such action. Secondly, it is the county court rather than the magistrates' court which is to consider these cases. Thirdly, where county court action is taken, the company cannot then proceed to disconnection unless the charges remain unpaid. Fourthly, even then the undertaker should make reasonable attempts to contact the customer with a view to agreeing a payment arrangement, failing which the undertaker would give due notice of disconnection. Fifthly, these principles are to be

1301
written, together with other customer safeguards, into the licence itself and will be enforceable by the director general.
Finally, one small point, which is that the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Murray, both referred to a neighbour not being able to help another neighbour. We are slightly sad that they did not put their names down to the government amendment which follows, Amendment No. 321A, which removes that suggestion from the Bill.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Wise will be able to see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Wise, will speak last because his amendment comes first. But I thought that it might be helpful if I said a few words because I had threatened—I believe that is the right word—that I would continue to move Amendment No. 318B, even if the noble Lord, Lord Wise, withdrew Amendment No.318A.
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. I shall not ask him for a transcript of his speech on this occasion because he said the most important things three times for emphasis. As I understand it, he is going 99 per cent. of the way towards meeting the noble Lord's objections and a considerable part of the way to removing the necessity for our more radical proposals in Amendment No. 318B. I consider the effect of this debate and the Government's decisions today to be a victory for consumers of water. I congratulate the Government on having made that victory possible without forcing me to divide the Committee on the matter.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: Before we leave this subject, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. We all appreciate clearly the fact that codes of practice do not have the force of law, which might worry some people. We also noted very carefully the fact that the director general will have the power to ensure that licence conditions are adhered to. That is also very satisfactory. Does the Bill in any way bar action in the courts by customers in the case of a breach of a licence condition or non-performance of a licence condition? To put it another way, can a customer who has been wronged as a result of the water undertaking not complying with its code of practice go to law to have this answered?
Lord Hesketh: As we have proceeded through the Bill over the last five days, the answer is that on certain occasions and in certain circumstances they can. The Bill has provided enhancement of customer's rights with regard to the undertaker.
Lord Wise: I should first like to thank all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee who have supported the amendments. Indeed we are grateful. I am deeply appreciative of the remarks of my noble friend the Minister. I am certain that his remarks will also be appreciated by the general public. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 318B to 318D not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 319:
Page 56, line 12, after ("secure") insert—

("(a)").

The noble Lord said: Clause 49 sets out the circumstances in which a water undertaker will be able to cut off supplies of water. The undertaker will have powers to do this to carry out necessary works, for non-payment of charges and at the request of the consumer. In cases where the undertaker cuts off a supply to carry out necessary works, he will be under a duty to ensure that the works are carried out with reasonable dispatch. He will not, however, as the clause stands, be required to provide an alternative supply of water.
In cases where the disconnection will last longer than 24 hours and therefore may begin to cause considerable inconvenience to the customer, we think it only reasonable that the undertaker should be required to provide an alternative supply. Amendments Nos. 319 and 320 provide for this. The alternative supply would normally be by means of a standpipe or a water tanker. For disconnections lasting less than 24 hours, a customer should, with a little economy in his use of water, be able to withstand the effects of the disconnection without too much inconvenience through using the supply of water retained within the system. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These appear to be reasonable and helpful amendments. I am pretty sure that we welcome them. The only question is whether the Minister is proposing a closer definition of what is meant by "a reasonable distance"? This matter has caused considerable concern in all the privatisation measures. If he were able to define it more closely or to indicate where it is defined, I should find that helpful.
Lord Hesketh: We believe that that is a matter for the courts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 56, line 13, after ("and") insert—

("(b) that any supply of water to those premises for domestic purposes is interrupted for more than twenty-four hours for the purposes of the carrying out of those works only if an emergency supply has been made available (whether or not in pipes) within a reasonable distance of those premises; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 320ZA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 320ZB:
Page 56, line 46, after ("Where") insert ("by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is not about the merits or demerits of disconnection for domestic purposes. We have had that debate. Nor does it argue against the need to inform local authorities of disconnections because of non-payment of water charges. It is about lessening bureaucracy.
Clause 49(8) requires a water undertaker to notify a local authority within 48 hours of cutting off the water supply or disconnecting a supply of water to

1303
any domestic house. The power is given under three categories: first, when carrying out operational work; secondly, for non-payment of bills; and thirdly, when the consumer by agreement no longer wishes to have a supply of water. In the Bill as drafted there is no distinction between those three categories. I am concerned that there should be no unnecessary notices served on local authorities.
I was slightly puzzled by the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to remove this subsection. I did not glean from the previous debate the reason for that proposal but it is possible that I may secure his support for my amendment. My own region—the Anglian region—is typical of the 10 authorities. During the course of a year there are 1,900 disconnections for non-payment of bills and 250,000 disconnections for operational purposes. Many of those operational disconnections are for as little as a couple of hours; certainly not as long as 48 hours. No operational cut-off in the Anglian region has taken more than 48 hours.
When a large operational job is carried out—for example, the scraping and re-lining of a pipe which is a typical large-scale job—only 30 hours work is involved. The Bill as drafted requires notification within 48 hours. It is possible that the water has been disconnected, restored and everyone has gone home before someone has to go through the bureacratic nonsense of letting a local authority know that the water has been disconnected. Apart from the cut-offs for non-domestic non-payment of charges, the water supply will be restored.
A requirement in the Bill for a water undertaker to serve 250,000 notices each year on local authorities, which would be rendered unnecessary if the water is restored within a short time, is unnecessary bureaucracy. Anglia is one of the 10 authorities. Let us assume that they all have a similar workload. One can therefore envisage approximately 2·5 million notices to local authorities simply stating that water has been cut off, possibly after the event. If we are in the business of simplifying and reducing bureaucracy and costs the amendment has some attraction.
I am concerned that notifying a local authority is not simply a matter of picking up a telephone and telling the authority that 4 Acacia Avenue is to be disconnected. If it is a requirement of the Bill that the call must be registered, the water companies must have some kind of bureaucracy to prove that the call has been made and the local authorities must register it and do something about it. I believe that the bureaucracy is quite unnecessary; I hope that the amendment will receive the support of my noble friend and the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not respond in any way to the noble Baroness's challenge to debate amendments which have already been withdrawn or not moved. However, I believe that her amendment is sensible. She is speaking of the burden on water undertakers to issue notices to local authorities. I am thinking about the burden on local authorities which must receive them. On the face of it, any restriction from unnecessary pieces of paper passing to and fro is desirable.
Lord Renton: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Blatch. Anything which reduces bureaucracy—more politely called "administration"—is worth doing. Goodness knows, there will be plenty of it when the Bill comes into operation! Any mitigation that we can introduce will be an advantage.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 49 sets out the circumstances in which a water undertaker is able to cut off supplies of water. Subsection (8) requires an undertaker to serve notice on the relevant local authority within 48 hours of cutting off a supply to an inhabited house.
Amendment No. 320ZB seeks to restrict the requirement to notify the local authority to the case of disconnections for non-payment of charges. The effect of this would be to exclude from the requirement disconnections, for example, in order to carry out essential works that could last for a considerable period. As the requirement to inform the local authority is for public health reasons it is the fact of disconnection that is of immediate relevance and not the cause.
My noble friend Lady Blatch may be worried that the clause as drafted may require the briefest of disconnections for essential works to be notified even though the supply is expected to be restored within the 48-hour period. I think she will find that in practice her fears are unfounded. I can tell her that the provision is based on the present requirement in the 1945 Water Act which has operated to the best of my knowledge without creating any such difficulties. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by this and, particularly in view of the public health implications, she will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, I remain a little worried. If the clause remains in the Bill as drafted I accept his suggestion that there are reasonable grounds. I am however concerned that not only is there a legal requirement to notify the local authority but also that there will also be a legal requirement on the water companies to prove a reasonable exemption from having disconnected unnecessarily.
I believe that we would have an unnecessary series of resorts to the courts and to questions of why the water company did not inform. I believe that the simplest course of action would be to accept the amendment. I do not intend to press it at this stage but I ask the Minister to give the matter some thought between now and Report stage.
Lord Hesketh: I shall read with great interest what my noble friend has said and also the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the Minister will not because I was convinced by his argument.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 320A:
Page 56, line 50, at end insert (", and shall also serve notice on the customer service committee for the area concerned.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 320B. The amendments raise the question of the extent to which the consumer service committees should be kept informed of disconnections in their areas. I agree with the purport of the preceding amendment as debated—that we should try to cut down the amount of paper work. Nonetheless, it is an important part of the work of a customer service committee that it should be aware of what is going on as regards disconnections and of their frequency and importance in the area.
The amendments are of a probing nature and are intended to discover how the committees can be kept informed of what in our opinion should be an important part of their work. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 320A provides for each water undertaker to notify the customer service committee to which it is allocated of all disconnections of water supply. Amendment No. 320B would require customer service committees to publish annual reports listing all disconnections notified to them under the previous amendment.
Customers can naturally take up with their relevant customer service committee any complaints they may have about the exercise by a company of its powers to disconnect water supply and the committees are likely to wish to pursue this matter on behalf of customers more generally in any event. If a company was unwilling to provide information about disconnections which a committee considered relevant to its functions as set out in the Bill, then the committee could take the matter up with the director general. The director has powers under condition L of the licence to require information for the purpose of carrying out any of his functions under the Bill.
Where a committee considered it necessary to report on the issues raised by disconnections, it could do so under Clause 36 (1)(b). The director would have no reason to withhold the publication of such a report, particularly given the importance of the public being properly informed about disconnection practice, although he would have to have regard to his duty under Clause 34 to consider commercial and personal confidentiality. The director and the CSCs will no doubt wish to keep a close eye on disconnections for non-payment if for no other reason than monitoring the operation of the disconnection code.
For planned interruptions of supply the CSCs will have access to the information required to be published each year under licence condition I by undertakers in their levels of service information and service target reports. Interruptions to supplies is one of the service indicators for which targets are to be set in order to improve the quality of service and encourage increased efficiency.
However, having listened to the arguments put forward and given the importance which we attach to disconnection for non-payment being very much a matter of last resort, I am prepared to consider
1306
whether an appropriate amendment might be made, either to the Bill or to condition G of the licence, to require water undertakers to provide customer service committees with numbers of disconnections for non-payment of charges by each local authority area. For the reasons I have just indicated I do not consider it necessary that this should be extended to cover all disconnections. Nor do I consider it desirable that companies should be required to identify each household concerned given the often confidential and sensitive nature of the circumstances surrounding individual disconnections. In the light of this undertaking I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 320A.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the detailed answer which he gave in response to my amendments. It is very gratifying that the Government, both in response to this amendment and previous amendments, have emphasised the importance which they attach to the whole question of disconnections. They fully recognise the public concern on this matter. I am delighted to learn also that as regards the customer service committees, the Government will now take this away and think about ways in which they can be kept regularly informed about disconnections occurring in each local authority area on grounds of non-payment. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 320B and 320C not moved.]
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Duty as respects constant supply and pressure.]:
[Amendment No. 321 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 321 AZA:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert ("or to show that it was prevented from complying with its obligations under this section by frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause.").
The noble Baroness said: Again, this is an amendment about making the Bill when it becomes an Act work better. Clause 51 places a water undertaker under a duty to provide a constant supply of water at an adequate pressure. That is a similar duty to that contained in the present legislation—Section 39 and the third Schedule of the Water Act 1945. Any failure to comply with that duty is a criminal offence.
However, there is one crucial difference between the provisions in the Bill and the current legislation, and that is the wording of the defence which does not include frost and drought. Under the current legislation it is a sufficient defence against prosecution for the undertakers to show that they failed to comply with the constant supply and pressure duty by reason of frost and drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause or during the execution of any necessary work.
The defence of this duty in Clause 51(9) states:
"it shall be a defence for that undertaker to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence."
There is no reference to frost or drought in that wording and that could cause the water undertaker serious problems.
The defence under the Bill as drafted is less clear than the present legislation; for example, could the words "due diligence" and "reasonable steps" mean that a water undertaker would now be required to take remedial action against possible drought or frost damage by either relaying all pipework which was laid in the days when pipe-laying techniques were less advanced and which may have left them vulnerable to frost and drought or even to build greater capacity into the distribution system to compensate in the event of drought or frost? In any case, both examples would require substantial capital expenditure.
It has been reported in the press that sewage discharge consents have been amended so that the consent conditions give effect to the quality of the sewage discharged. That is being done because water authority directors will be unable to sign flotation prospectuses if they are committing criminal offences; in that case they would be in breach of discharge consent conditions. Surely the same argument applies here. If the defence to the criminal offences under both Clauses 51 and 47 is not made clear, there must be similar prospectus implications.
If the new requirement of Clause 51 (9) is to remain as drafted, then a phased introduction should be considered; otherwise, undertakers could find themselves in the following situation. Works which were perfectly adequate to satisfy the defence contained in Section 39 of the Water Act 1945 might not be sufficient to satisfy the defence contained in Clause 51(9). That does not seem reasonable. However, if the Bill as drafted means that the frost and drought exemption is no longer appropriate and should be replaced by the reasonable steps and due diligence defence, surely that defence should be introduced in stages and a form of wording should be devised so as to apply the defence to new works which water undertakers build with the new narrower defence in mind. It is not reasonable to apply a narrower defence to a vast network of existing assets without taking into account the impact of that on capital expenditure.
Water undertakers need a realistic and fair defence against events not within their control. My amendment provides for that and I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: Clause 51 sets out the requirements on water undertakers in respect of constancy and pressure of supplies. The Secretary of State is able to modify by order the requirements on an undertaker. The obligations are enforceable under Clause 20 by the Secretary of State. An undertaker which breaches its obligations is also to be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. Subsection (9) provides a defence for an undertaker to show in any proceeding for an offence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid
1308
breaching its obligations. The purpose of Amendment No. 321 AZA in the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch is to broaden an undertaker's defence for a breach of its obligations under this clause. It proposes an additional defence for an undertaker to show that it was prevented from complying with its obligations by frost, drought, unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause.
The effect of this amendment would be to provide an absolute defence for an undertaker in these circumstances. Thus there would be no recourse for those adversely affected should an undertaker, for example, in the future fail to lay pipes deep enough to be protected even in normal degrees of frost.
I recognise that the amendment seeks merely to preserve the current legislative position. However, we believe the provisions in Clause 51 strike the right balance between an undertaker's entitlement to a proper degree of protection against events outside its control and its obligations to consumers. An undertaker will have the defence that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence.
We cannot accept that there is any justification for an undertaker being able to get away with neglecting to take even the most basic minimal steps to ensure that it can continue to fulfil its duties to its customers. It will properly be for the courts to make any judgment about the reasonableness of steps taken to avoid a breach of the duty in the light of the particular circumstances. We believe that the changes we are proposing to current law are entirely reasonable and I therefore trust that my noble friend will also see the sweet reason contained therein.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend the Minister. I am trying to be sweet and reasonable. There is a concern. It is not my view that the water companies are looking for an absolute defence against doing nothing to prevent damage from drought or frost. Where they need considerable understanding is that it is possible to have damage to pipework for no better reason that that it was laid at too shallow a level. It could be that the water companies know that in advance. What I am trying to rule out is a requirement on the water companies to put every inadequacy of the 19th century right immediately, because that would be taking all reasonable precautions in advance of any damage, or, should there be any damage, that it can be taken—if I read my noble friend's comments aright—that as long as all other reasonable steps are taken the companies would be exempt from any kind of breach or offence.
I need to read my noble friend's comments more closely but I wonder what would be the defence of a water company if damage was caused to a pipe and the only reason was that the technology available at the time it was laid was such that it left it vulnerable to drought or frost.
The Earl of Arran: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I can assist my noble friend a little further on this point. Pipes laid under the old provisions will continue to be subject to the old conditions. The Bill's requirements will only apply to pipes laid under the provisions of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I thank my noble friend very much for that clarification. I am not absolutely certain that the words of the Bill convey precisely that meaning but I shall read what has been said and if the wording is not correct perhaps my noble friend will bring forward a different form of words on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Duties of water undertakers with respect to water quality]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 321ZA:
Page 60, line 29, leave out ("in general").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to leave out the word "general" in Clause 52(l)(b) on the ground that the subsection already starts with the words "so far as reasonably practicable". This is a vital matter. The clause deals with the duties of water undertakers to supply water of the right quality and to maintain that quality and we feel that these two qualifications go too far. If the subsection starts by saying "so far as reasonably practicable" the companies should ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of the water and then adds the words "in general", it seems to us that it is a fairly weak provision.
Therefore, our reason for tabling this simple amendment is that we feel the subsection should be strengthened. We were minded to leave out both qualifications, but in the interests of seeking to be fair to the water undertakers we leave in one qualification and ask the Committee to agree that the other qualification should be removed. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would mean that water undertakers would be under a duty, so far as was reasonably practicable, to provide water which did not vary in quality at any time, anywhere that it was supplied. I hope that what I have to say will assure noble Lords that the phrase "in general" is included purely on scientific and practical grounds and does not lessen the requirement to maintain the high quality of our drinking water.
This provision places water undertakers under an entirely new obligation. For the first time they will be required to ensure that there is no deterioration in the quality of their supplies. Where water is already of a high quality the undertaker may be tempted, for reasons of cost, for example, to let this slip to just above the legally enforceable minimum standards. Obviously this would be wrong. This provision prevents that from happening. Standards must not be allowed to decline to the lowest acceptable levels. I am sure the Committee will agree with me on that point.
However, it is a scientific impossibility to ensure that the quality of water does not change. The very nature of water means that it is subject to seasonal variations such as heavy rainfall or drought beyond the control of the undertaker. Unless those changes showed an overall deterioration in quality over
1310
several years, or an exceptional change in a particular year, they would not be a cause for concern. It is these types of variation that the qualifying phrase "in general" is designed to cover. Water quality changes may also be brought about by operational processes such as blending, substitution of a ground water supply with a surface water derived supply, or the provision of a standby supply.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ezra: Far be it from me to wish to engage in a scientific discussion with the noble Lord, but I should have thought that the words "so far as reasonably practicable" cover all the points he made. However, I do not wish to press the matter further. We have been given an assurance that the maintenance of quality will be a prime consideration, as it should be, and that only matters effectively outside the control of the water companies will be excepted under the terms of this clause. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 321ZAB:
Page 60, line 35, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and in doing so I speak also to Amendment No. 321ZAC. The effect of these two amendments is to impose a new duty on plcs to prevent water from becoming unwholesome in the course of supply.
Clause 52 imposes a duty upon a water undertaker at the time of supply to supply only water which is wholesome. Subsection (2) of the clause relieves the undertaker of any responsibility for the quality of water once it has left the undertaker's pipes; that is, in most cases the stopcock at the curtilage of the premises. While the undertaker's water mains may be constructed from such materials as cast iron, asbestos or plastic, the pipes belonging to the consumer are more likely to be manufactured from copper or, in the case of older properties, lead.
Many waters are unstable with respect to the materials through which they pass. With lead pipes, certain waters are potentially plumbo-solvent in that they will attack lead piping and cause the lead to be dissolved into the water supply. This most commonly occurs in older houses and in particular where water may stand overnight in long lengths of lead piping. Iron and steel water storage tanks and fittings may be subject to accelerated rates of corrosion by certain waters. As well as destroying the pipes in time, corrosion can be very troublesome in causing stains, colour and turbidity due to dissolved iron.
By carefully regulating parameters of water quality, the undertakers are in a position to control to a large degree the deterioration of the water that has left their own mains but which is passing through or being stored in the consumer's plumbing system. In particular, pH corrosion is frequently associated with acid waters of low pH. Where bicarbonate

1311
alkalinity is high, corrosion and plumbo-solvency are unlikely. High total solids may contribute to corrosion: as electrolytes they may promote galvanic corrosion. Organic matter may encourage plumbo-solvency. Under anaerobic conditions, sulphate may be reduced to hydrogen sulphide and so aggravate corrosion.
Free chlorine can in certain circumstances aggravate corrosion. Iron bacteria and sulphur bacteria can promote corrosion. We consider it desirable that the water undertakers be given the responsibility to provide water which will not, under normal circumstances, deteriorate within the consumer's pipes. The undertakers can control this by careful regulation of, among other things, pH, carbonate balance, inhibitors and de-aeration. The proposed amendment will extend the undertaker's duty of care to water within the consumer's pipes. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Before replying to the amendment, perhaps I may, on behalf of all Members of the Committee, welcome the very happy return of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. We hope that he is fully recovered from his recent accident and we are very pleased to see him.
Clause 52 clearly provides that undertakers are under a duty when supplying water to any premises to supply only water which is wholesome at the time of supply. Subsections (2) and (3) deal with the case where water becomes unwholesome after it has left the undertaker's system. Amendment No. 321ZAC would extend the duty of water undertakers to supply wholesome water to situations where the water became unwholesome after it left the undertaker's pipes because of a defect in the performance of the undertaker or his agent. Amendment No. 321ZAB would only cause doubt as to the meaning of Clause 52(2).
I fully appreciate the point behind the noble Lord's Amendment No. 321ZAC. We do not wish water to be supplied of such a quality that it will react with pipework which is normally used in properties and produce unpleasant or harmful water at the consumer's tap. At present undertakers only have a statutory duty to supply wholesome water while it is in their pipes. In addition undertakers have always owed a common law duty of care to their customers in these circumstances, but the precise extent of that duty is not at all clear when applied to the interaction of water with lead pipes, for example.
We are therefore taking the opportunity to clarify this in the Bill and particularly by subsection (3) of this clause. This subsection enables the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying what obligations a water undertaker has where the water could become unwholesome after it leaves his pipes. These regulations will have to be very carefully drafted. They need to draw a fair distinction between those situations where it is reasonable to require the undertaker to adjust the treatment of water supplied to the area, and those where it is really a matter for the property owner to deal with—by, for example, replacing his own pipes.
1312
I fear that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord is both too general and too limited to achieve the end which we are looking for. On the one hand "any defect in the performance" is a very vague expression which would clearly need to be defined at some length in an explanatory document. On the other hand, some of the issues which we wish to cover under subsection (3) could hardly be called "defects in the performance", such as the supply of water which is perfectly satisfactory unless it is in prolonged contact with a particular type of plumbing. It is for these reasons that we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Lord for the remarks that he made to me personally. I am also grateful to him for the explanation that he gave as regards the present position under subsection (3) of this part of the Bill. I accept entirely the proposition that an attempt is to be made in the regulations to draw a fair distinction concerning responsibilities in this area between undertakers and consumers. However, I believe that the purpose of the amendment is quite frankly to place responsibility on the person best able to deal with it. And as I have said, that is the undertaker. I believe that this is a problem that is likely to grow in incidence because of the extensive use virtually acknowledged by the Minister of lead piping in old properties for taking water from the company's main into housing. If it is to be replaced by reason of maintaining or improving water quality, that will represent a fairly sizeable burden on the consumers as those of us who have had to take this action in recent months are well aware.
I believe that the point of the amendment has been reasonably argued. Even within the present context, the plcs, if they so desire, will be able to do something to help consumers by the manner in which they treat water which they know is to be stored overnight. It is therefore likely to suffer something of a change as between its condition when it arrives at the undertaker's point of delivery and its receipt in the consumer's household. Nevertheless, I believe that the assurances which the Minister has given me are sufficient for the present. I accept his argument that it will be a difficult task, in drafting regulations on this point, to hold a fair balance between the parties. I hope that the moving of this amendment will in some respects, firstly, publicise the nature of the problem and perhaps also, in striking that balance, persuade the Secretary of State to lean a little in favour of the consumer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321ZAC not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Aylestone): If Amendment No. 321ZB is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 321ZBA.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 321ZB:
Page 61, line 7, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Where a water undertaker supplies water by means of pipes to any premises and that water is unwholesome at the time of supply the undertaker shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on conviction on indictment to a fine.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the position as regards the obligations of the water undertaker to provide wholesome water and not to provide unwholesome water. We feel that subsection (5) as drafted is a little weak. The alternative drafting, which makes it an offence to supply unwholesome water rather than to have as an obligation the supply of wholesome water—which is the significance of the existing subsection (5)—is much stronger and is in line with our general views and our concerns about the need to ensure that standards of water supply should be maintained at the highest desirable level. On those grounds, I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment substitutes for the enforcement procedure under Clause 20 an offence provision with penalties where an undertaker supplies water which is unwholesome. Water will be unwholesome whenever it fails to comply with any of the standards to be laid down in regulations made under Clause 65. The meaning of wholesomeness will therefore be significantly changed by the Bill. These standards will include all the drinking water directive standards and a number of others. They are very tight standards and many of them are concerned not with health risks but with the appearance and taste of the water. No country in Europe complies with all of these standards and all are having to take steps to improve their supplies.
Members of the Committee will already be aware that substantial programmes of improvement are under way in this country to comply fully with these standards. The programmes will have to be agreed with the Secretary of State under Clause 20 and made public. A failure to fulfil the programmes, unless for a very good reason, will lead to an enforcement order being made. This seems an eminently sensible and practical way to proceed. We believe that it would be quite unjustifiable to subject the water undertaker to criminal penalties every time one of the quality standards was breached. Some of the standards relate solely to the appearance or taste of the water and an occasional failure to comply with the colour or taste standard is not something to warrant criminal penalties. This is even less justifiable when the undertaker has programmes of improvement under way which are proceeding as fast as practicable. In some instances such as where water has to be de-nitrified, treatment processes are still at the development stage, and it would be very unfortunate if an undertaker were penalised for quite properly proceeding in a cautious manner to gain experience with the treatment process before using it on a wide scale.
The proper occasion for a criminal penalty is when water unfit for human consumption is supplied, and Clause 54 already provides just that. Removing the enforcement of this clause under the provisions of Clause 20 would have been the loss of the very significant enforcement provisions contained in the Bill. Instead of the Secretary of State being able to require the undertaker to take appropriate remedial action, which if not carried out could lead ultimately to the loss of the undertaker's appointment, he could only institute criminal proceedings leading to the
1314
imposition of a fine. This would mean a significant weakening in the enforcement regime. For these reasons I ask Members of the Committee to reject this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, responds to that, I must say how very interested I was in the Minister's reply, especially when he talked about compliance with directives. Did he perhaps include European Commission directives in that? If so, would he like to tell the Committee what progress is being made in negotiations with the European Commission under Clause 38, as amended?
Lord Hesketh: I was certainly referring to European directives, which I am sure comes as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. As regards the latest state of play, I believe that my noble friend Lord Caithness has this very week received a letter from the Commissioner confirming the arrangements which were agreed with the Government.
Lord Ezra: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration that he gave to the amendment, which once again emphasises the importance attached to the supply of wholesome water, to penalties for the supply of unwholesome water and certainly to strong enforcement. However, in the light of the explanation which he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 321ZBA:
Page 61, line 8, leave out ("enforceable") and insert ("enforced").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I move Amendment No. 321ZBA.The amendment replaces the word "enforceable" with the word "enforced" in subsection (5) of Clause 52. This would require the duties of a water undertaker in relation to the quality and sufficiency of water supplies under Clause 20 to be enforceable by the Secretary of State. As subsection (5) is currently drafted, the Secretary of State has given himself the power to enforce, but no duty to do so. The Minister will doubtless argue that the Secretary of State needs to make judgments in individual situations, and that fact is not denied.
However, the amendment draws attention to the fact that without some requirement on the Secretary of State to take enforcement action, that series of duties—as with many others in the Bill—will effectively have no sanctions. The interests of consumers and of the industry rest on decisions as to enforcement made by the Secretary of State.
Amendments have already been moved, and lost, to include local authorities as enforcement agents. This amendment again shows that it still behoves the Secretary of State to explain why so much should rely on his individual decisions. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will always enforce duties where they have been

1315
breached, other than in trivial cases? Can he say whether such enforcement will take place quickly? Further, will consumers have a right of redress if the Secretary of State does not take action in a situation where they believe it should have been taken? Those are just some of the questions underlying the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Under this amendment the duties of a water undertaker concerning the quality of water it supplies would be "enforced" instead of "enforceable" by the Secretary of State under Clause 20. We believe that the amendment would have no substantive effect, as in either case the Secretary of State will be bound to operate in accordance with Clause 20. The change of word here does not affect how he operates under Clause 20 as that is laid down by the clause itself. As I explained to the Committee on Monday, the amendments to Clause 20 will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to enforce Clause 52 subject to the provisions of Clause 20(2) and (5).
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for his assurance that Clause 20 as it now stands imposes a duty to enforce regulations. Accordingly, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 321ZBB:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
("Publication of standards of wholesomeness and performance criteria.
. The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act and from time to time thereafter, publish details of—

(a) any standard of wholesomeness currently applicable for the purposes of section 52 above;

(b) a statement of, and the reasons for, any requirements established in regulations under section 53 below for the purposes of preserving drinking water quality; and

(c) the proposed timeable within which each water undertaker is expected to achieve compliance with any prescribed standard of wholesomeness, or (to the extent that it is a different standard) any level of quality established in a current EC Directive.").

The noble Lord said: In order to orientate the new clause in its correct context I need to make reference to Clause 52 because, as Members of the Committee will be aware, that clause relates to water quality. Clause 52(1)(a) reads:
"when supplying water to any premises for domestic purposes to supply only water which is wholesome at the time of supply".
Clause 52(1)(b) talks in terms of there being:
"no deterioration in the quality of the water which is supplied from time to time from that source or combination of sources."
Further on in Clause 52 we are talking in terms of when water can be held to be unwholesome. In subsection (3)(a) it says:
"It has ceased to be wholesome after leaving the undertaker's pipes but while in a pipe which is subject to water pressure from a water main or which would be so subject but for the closing of some valve".
Clause 52(3)(b) it reads:
"it has so ceased in consequence of the failure of the undertaker, before supplying the water, to take such steps as may be prescribed for the purpose of securing the elimination or reduction to a minimum of any prescribed risk that the water would cease to be wholesome after leaving the undertaker's pipes."
I am told that an investigation into the track record of enforcement of drinking water standards in this country would show a history of relaxed interpretations, derogations from and disregard to standards, in particular to the document, 80/778/EEC. I should remind the Committee and the Minister who seems a little puzzled at the easy way in which I quoted that reference, that in December 1987, after taking legal advice, the Government, faced with action by the European Commission, were forced to accept a more stringent interpretation of the EC directive for admissible concentrations of substances in drinking water. In 1986 the Department of the Environment told water authorities to ignore EC standards for pesticides in drinking water arguing that the limits should be based upon toxicological evidence and not on limits of detection.
In another place the above view was still maintained. The Minister for Water and Planning stated that it was the intention to get some parameters changed. He said that standards for other substances were too stringent and that they were not based on a proper toxicological analysis. He suggested that the standards set should be more sensible; in other words, less stringent. I submit that there is cause for concern at the Government's acceptability of contamination of drinking water supplies, and at the attitude of taking action only in circumstances where a risk to health has been conclusively proved.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a standard of wholesomeness is published, together with details of the measures which are being adopted by each water undertaker to secure compliance. If one looks at the amendment, it will be seen that that is precisely what we are asking the Committee to approve: that there be written on the face of the Bill that, any standard of wholesomeness, currently applicable for the purpose of Clause 52, shall be published; and that there shall be a statement of, together with the reasons for, any requirements established in regulations under Clause 53 for the purposes of preserving drinking water quality.
More important, in the context of previous happenings in this Chamber, it is proposed in the amendment that there should be a timetable within which each water undertaker is expected to achieve compliance with any prescribed standard of wholesomeness; or, to the extent that it is a different standard, that it should achieve compliance with any level of quality established in a current EC directive.
I hope that the Minister will understand the importance that we on these Benches attach not only to the quality of drinking water but also to the publication to the public of what are held to be satisfactory standards and as to what in actual fact has happened to those standards over a period. The public is entitled to know the quality of the water that it drinks. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this new clause would be that the Secretary of State would have to publish standards of wholesomeness, explanation of the regulations made under Clause 53 and the time by which each undertaker will have to achieve compliance with the standards.
The concept of wholesomeness is not defined in current legislation. This is remedied in the Bill. Water will be defined as wholesome if it meets the requirements of regulations made under Clause 65. These regulations will fully incorporate the quality standards laid down in the EC drinking water directive and will set 12 further national standards where none or less stringent ones are set in the directive itself. Water will be unwholesome whenever a sample infringes a standard set in the regulations.
A consultation paper on the proposed contents of the regulations was published in February. The regulations are now being drafted and will be laid before Parliament as soon as the Bill gains Royal Assent. The water industry and local authority associations have been closely consulted throughout their preparation and a copy of the proposals has also been sent to the EC Commission. Once the regulations have been made, copies will be available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. We also intend to publish a guidance document explaining the regulations. Any amendments to the regulations that may be required, because of, for example, changes to the standards set in the EC directive will be made by means of the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
Where water undertakers are unable to meet any of the standards set in the regulations, they will have to agree programmes of improvement with the department. They will also have to publish in their annual report on drinking water quality progress towards achieving compliance and to make publicly available on a zone by zone basis details of the programmes agreed with the department. Copies of the undertakings given in relation to these programmes under Clause 20(5)(b), as now amended, must be included in the public register to be established by the director general.
I am therefore happy to state that the proposals put forward in the noble Lord's new clause are already catered for in the Bill, or in steps which we propose to take once the Bill has been enacted.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, also said that the Minister will understand the importance that noble Lords on the Benches opposite attach to this matter. I think I can go no further than saying that I suspect the Committee will be interested to know that Commissioner Ripa has written to my noble friend Lord Caithness confirming that discussions on the Bill have come to a satisfactory conclusion. In his letter, he said that the government amendments made to Clause 20, and the statement I made in introducing the amendments, satisfied him that the United Kingdom Government intend to rectify any deficiency in water supplies as quickly as possible, taking certain practicalities into account. With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before my noble friend responds, we listened with great attention to the noble Lord reading the letter from the European Environment Commissioner. No doubt the letter will be, or has been, placed in the Library. I think it will have to be, because a letter of this kind which is read out in Committee, and is a communication from the European Commission, ought to be made available to noble Lords who are concerned with the progress of this Bill. I assume that it ought to be placed in the House of Commons Library as well.
Just so that I understand clearly what it is that the noble Lord has told us, we understand that the amendments to Clause 20 which deal with enforcement have gained the approval of the European Commission. But the amendments which were made to Clause 38 on Monday, in particular Amendment No. 288B, went further than that. That amendment referred to agreement on a timetable for a date or dates, not in regard to progress towards compliance with the European standard but the date by which the compliance should be completed. Is the Minister telling us that the Commission has now agreed, in terms which are compatible with Amendment No. 288B, with proposals that have been made by Her Majesty's Government for completion of compliance with European standards?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I am not sure whether it is entirely appropriate that we should return to Clause 38, but I shall try to answer the point which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has raised. The subject of Monday's debate is very pertinent to the amendments which we are debating now, and I think it will be helpful if I try to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
First, I should like to remove the confusion produced by some of the statements the noble Lord made at the time. He proposed that Parliament should lay down a timetable for compliance with the EC drinking water directive standards. But to lay down such a timetable in legislation would be contrary to the directive, which sets a much earlier date, and the legal requirement must be to comply now. That is what the Bill does through Clause 52—to supply water meeting those standards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister went backwards by referring to Clause 20, and to go back only as far as Clause 38 is surely a much lesser offence in procedural terms. It is true that the reasoned opinion issued in April gave as a deadline for compliance two months from the date of issue of the reasoned opinion. The Government made it clear at that time, and ought to repeat it, that there was no possibility whatsoever of meeting the compliance requirements of the reasoned opinion within two months of the issue of the reasoned opinion.
I am surprised that the Minister should repeat the bland statement that that is the legal position, when the Secretary of State has already made it clear that the Government did not accept the deadline which had already been set. The fact that a deadline had been set, which the Government have already

1319
repudiated, does not mean therefore that it is improper to seek to impose a reasonable deadline, and the Bill as amended now provides for a more reasonable deadline. The Minister would be well advised not to fall into the trap which the Friends of the Earth have fallen into, of thinking that any reasonable deadline is improper or illegal.
Lord Hesketh: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would be very surprised to find me falling into the same trap as the Friends of the Earth. Perhaps I may rectify what I did not answer the previous time I rose to the Dispatch Box and say that a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been more than fair to the Committee and has in fact been generous. I am trying to find a word which will make the Minister smile instead of grimace. He has given the Committee as much information as he can, all of which goes a long way along the lines of the amendment that we have moved. It is quite clear that the Minister and his colleagues have become more sensitive in these matters than we had hitherto thought they were; hence the purpose of the amendments.
I should like to remind the Minister of what the Minister for Water and Planning said in another place on this very issue. He said that standards for other substances were too stringent and were not based upon a proper toxocological analysis. He also said the Government suggest that should be more sensible—in other words, less stringent. Those are the Minister's words and we have been given no detail.
I appreciate, as the Minister said, that there have been consultations with local authorities and other bodies and that the Commission has been involved in discussions. That is what we hoped was happening. But until we rise at the Box on these amendments and ask pointed questions, we are not privy to what the Minister said. That is why my noble friend, with his experience in this Committee and on this Bill, is somewhat sensitive about accepting, not at face value but at first hearing, what the Minister tells us is the position.
However, the Minister has given us an assurance that the correspondence, on which he rested so heavily as a reason for not accepting this amendment, will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We shall study the correspondence with care and it may be that we shall want to come back at a later date. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In the next group of four amendments the first two have been marshalled in the wrong order, and so I must call Amendment No. 321ZBD first.
Clause 53 [Regulations for preserving water quality]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZBD:
Page 61, line 9, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: The amendment returns to a familiar issue which has arisen on a number of occasions in the Bill; that is, whether the Secretary of State "may" by regulations take some action or whether he "shall". In this case Clause 53 refers to the enforcement of the steps that have been prescribed for securing compliance with Clause 52 relating to duties on water undertakers with respect to water quality.
Clause 53(1) spells out a number of steps which may be prescribed to ensure that the water is wholesome. It was not until Monday when amendments were moved in Committee that we had an adequate definition of the word "wholesome". Unless the Secretary of State makes those regulations to secure compliance with Clause 52, we should not have monitoring or recording of water quality, the establishment of proper quality standards for water sources, records being kept of the localities supplied or the compliance with prescribed requirements on analysis of water. None of those would be brought into effect unless the Secretary of State made regulations.
As I understand it, the Secretary of State proposes to make those regulations. Under those circumstances, is there any conceivable reason why the Bill should not say that he "shall" rather than he "may" make the regulations? I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this amendment would be to turn the power to make regulations for preserving water quality into a duty. For all practical purposes there is no difference between "may" and "shall" as it is hardly conceivable that the Secretary of State would not make such regulations. For instance, they are required in order to implement certain parts of the EC drinking water directive.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows, it is the standard practice on this Bill, and in legislation generally, for the ability of the Secretary of State to make regultions to be in the terms of a power. There is no reason for departing from that in this case.
I am well aware that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will draw my attention to the changes in Clause 20. The amendments to Clause 20 concerning "may" and "shall", which we debated on Monday, are concerned with the making of enforcement orders, which is a different matter from making regulations. That is why I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This sounds like the last-ditch stand of the "may" brigade; the power as opposed to duty brigade. The distinction between enforcement orders and regulations is a distinction without a difference. There is no better reason for having "may" when, as the Minister says, it is hardly conceivable that the Secretary of State will not make the regulations. It is clear that the European Commission directive requires him to make the regulations. On this occasion the Minister might go back and say to his advisers, and to the department,

1321
that where regulations are required by the European Commission, a duty rather than a power is appropriate. This a long-running skirmish. I suppose that we shall not gain anything by dividing the Committee on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZBC:
Page 61, line 9, leave out from ("State") to end of line 13 and insert ("shall by regulations require the Director to establish and maintain a comprehensive water quality monitoring service, and such regulations shall enable the Director—").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is of considerable significance when we look at the ability of Clause 53 to secure compliance with the water quality requirements under Clause 52. The clause as drafted provides that the Secretary of State makes the regulations and that the obligations on the water authority are under the Secretary of State's regulations, and therefore he is responsible for enforcement. That is a profound misunderstanding of what should be the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services.
As it stands, the Secretary of State makes regulations for water quality. He is also responsible for the appointment of technical assessors, and he has the sole responsibility for taking enforcement action against undertakers. That is not a matter for Whitehall or even for Marsham Street. Compliance is required to be carried out locally and operated on the ground because water is supplied all over the country and breaches of wholesomeness standards will happen all over the country. Those powers should be the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services who has a staff, or ought to have a staff, available throughout the country to secure compliance, rather than be the responsibility of central government.
There should be a water quality monitoring service controlled by the Director General of Water Services rather than it be restricted to the Secretary of State. There is no difficulty about retaining the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility. Under Clause 20 he still has discretionary powers, but it is more appropriate to separate responsibility for enforcing the regulations between the Secretary of State and the Director General of Water Services.
To take up a theme which has been debated at length in Committee, the Secretary of State has the political responsibility in the sense that he is responsible to Parliament for his actions, but the Director General of Water Services has the regulatory responsibility in that he has to achieve a balance between the interests of the water undertakings and the customers and the requirements laid upon him by the Secretary of State. The way in which the clause is drafted is an invitation to centralised bureacracy rather than to the effective enforcement of the powers necessary to achieve compliance with water quality standards. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of the amendment would be to transfer responsibility for monitoring the quality of water supplied by a water undertaker from the undertaker to the Director General of Water Services.
There are two strands to the proposition in the amendment; first, that the director general should be responsible for monitoring drinking water quality. There is also a more general argument that someone independent of the water undertakers should do this monitoring.
On the first point, responsibility for checking on and enforcing the undertakers' duties concerning drinking water quality will rest with the Secretary of State, not the director general. The Secretary of State will make regulations laying down quality standards and associated matters such as frequency and location of monitoring, minimum treatment requirements and publication of information. He will be responsible under Clause 20 for deciding whether the compliance programmes put forward by undertakers are acceptable, checking that they are being carried out, and making provisional or final orders where necessary. It is right for the Secretary of State to have those responsiblities, because drinking water quality is a public health matter and because the Government are responsible for ensuring that the EC drinking water directive is properly implemented.
The director general is concerned with the charges which an undertaker may make and associated matters. To give him the responsibility proposed in the amendment would substantially affect and enlarge the nature of his work in a way which would create considerable overlap and confusion with the Secretary of State's responsibilities.
On the wider issue of independent monitoring I would draw attention to the substantial proposals for independent monitoring already set out in the Bill which will be supplemented with regulations. Under Clause 60 the Secretary of State may appoint technical assessors to carry out investigations to ensure that there is compliance with the drinking water regulations. It is the Government's intention to establish a drinking water quality inspectorate within the Department of the Environment to carry out this function. The inspectors will have access to all the water undertaker's records and will be able to assess whether their sampling and analysis is in accordance with the strict requirements of the regulations. They will be checking on all the matters covered by regulations under this clause and Clause 52, as well as compliance with the quality standards set under Clause 65 regulations and progress with compliance programmes covered by undertakings given by Clause 20(5)(b).
The inspectors will be able to take their own samples as a further check. In addition to the inspectorate, local authorities will also have a role to play in checking water quality. They will be entitled to receive information on water quality from the undertaker, to take their own samples and to raise unsatisfactory matters first with the undertaker and then with the Secretary of State.

1323
Water undertakers may have samples taken and analysed by independent laboratories. These laboratories will have to comply with the analytical methods and practices specified in regulations and will be subject to inspection by the drinking water quality inspectorate. They will be the subject of independent analytical quality control which will provide a further safeguard. We have a different approach from that recommended by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I can assure Members of the Committee that we believe that it will be extremely effective.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clear that there are points of agreement and points of difference on the matter. The points of agreement are where we are all concerned that there should be a water quality control monitoring service. The Minister describes it as being the drinking water quality inspectorate within the Department of the Environment. We describe it as being a monitoring service operated by the Director General of Water Services.
I must say that I find the Minister's argument curious and out of line with much of current government thinking about the location of responsibility in the executive branch. In department after department, urged on by outside advisers, the Government, under the lead of the Prime Minister, are taking responsibilities away from mainline departments and giving them to agencies. These are being made trading units or executive agencies with their own targets and responsibilities. The claim is that they will be more efficient, more responsive to market forces, more responsive to the consumers of the services concerned and less dragged down by centralised bureaucracy.
Here we have an opportunity to set up a monitoring service, a quality inspectorate which could be operated by a newly appointed Director General of Water Services whose responsibilities are still fully to be defined in the Bill, whose staff have not yet been appointed and indeed whose identity has only become known within the last month. Here we have an opportunity for the delegation of an activity which needs to take place around the country wherever there is any threat to drinking water quality.
Yet the Government insist that matters should be kept within the department in Marsham Street. I find that extraordinary. It is an extraordinary departure from current Conservative thinking, and an extraordinary departure from what seems to us to be the rational distribution of responsibility for carrying out the role of regulation in a newly privatised industry.
The Secretary of State has responsibility for preparing the regulations. If he did not have that responsibility he would not be accountable to Parliament. So far we are in agreement. But enforcement surely ought to be the responsibility of the regulatory agency set up under the Bill.
I did not hear anything in the Minister's answer that gives me an opportunity to ask him questions in the hope that he will concede that we have a
1324
significant case. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that he will interrupt me; I do not think that I am wrong. I believe that we are in deep disagreement about the matter. What has happened here is that the traditional Civil Service mentality has overcome the interests both of Thatcherite philosophy and on this occasion also of common sense. Therefore I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 321ZBC) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Longford. E.

Airedale, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Annan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ardwick, L.

Molloy, L.

Aylestone, L.

Monson, L.

Birk, B.

Mountevans, L.

Blyth, L.

Mulley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Northfield, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rugby, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell, E.

Ennals, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shannon, E.

Ezra, L.

Stallard, L.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Foot, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gladwyn. L.

Thurlow, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thurso, V.

Grantchester, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hatch of Lusby. L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Warnock, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Colwyn, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Balfour, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Bauer, L.

Croft, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gainford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gisborough, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

Carnock, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

1325

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Pender, L.

Havers, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Henley, L.

Pym, L.

Hesketh, L.

Radnor, E.

Hives, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Reay, L.

Kitchener, E.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rochdale, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rodney, L.

Liverpool, E.

Romney, E.

Long, V.

Saint Albans, D.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Southborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Marley, L.

Strange, B.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Merrivale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mersey, V.

Sudeley, L.

Milverton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Trafford, L.

Munster, E.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nelson, E.

Windlesham, L.

Norrie, L.

Wise, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Onslow, E.

Wynford, L.

Orkney, E.

Young, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZBE:
Page 61, line 34, at end insert—

("(f) to issue, with any demand to consumers in respect of water charges, a statement of the water quality achieved in the area concerned, including details of any failure to meet standards prescribed for the purposes of section 52 above.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 321ZBE is such an obvious little amendment that I am surprised the Government have not thought of it themselves. It is in line with much of the thinking which runs through the Bill. It certainly is not in any way controversial or difficult. However, it is in accordance with the best practice of private companies in a very large number of areas. One can think, for example, of the major supermarket chains which, perhaps through encouragement by legislation but partly off their own bat, have made considerable strides in the improvement of descriptive packaging at the point of sale. The labelling on products describes what the products are and their composition.
We can also look at the requirements which exist regarding the description of medicines, including ethical pharmaceuticals, at the point of sale. Customers are entitled in this case to be told what it is they are buying. Why should that not apply to water? In this amendment we propose that when the water undertakings send out demands to consumers in respect of water charges—in other words their water bill—they should set out a statement of water quality in the area concerned, including details of any failure to meet the standards set out in Clause 52.
We have used the words "in the area concerned" deliberately. To use the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we are not seeking that the demand to No. 4 Acacia Avenue should comment individually on the quality of water at No. 4 Acacia Avenue. That would be an intolerable burden. However, in our view to set out the quality of water for the area as a whole would be in line with good practice, both in the public sector and in the private sector, and would be a modest burden on the water undertakings. It would also be an example of openness between suppliers and their customers. I think that would be much appreciated by those who are at the moment very much concerned about water quality. I hope that on that basis the Government will feel able to accept this modest little amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Under this amendment, the Secretary of State would be empowered to make regulations requiring water undertakers to include with customers' water bills a statement on water quality in the area, including details of any failures to meet the quality standards set by regulations under Clause 65. However, there is a slight difference between the way water flows through one's tap on a universal basis, and purchasing a product which is packaged or in a bottle on an individual basis.
On Monday we debated the availability of information on drinking water quality. I explained how full details of all analytical data for an area, taken in accordance with the regulations, will be freely available to customers. This will show any results which breach the standards.
Thus any customer who wishes to have specific information about his water quality will only have to ask the water undertaker for it. He will be able to inspect all the data and take copies of it, as often as he may desire. We believe this is a very efficient and open way of providing information to those who want it. We consider it is also an appropriate and equally good way as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. That is why we do not support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that is the case, can the Minister suggest why it is that gas bills—that is the nearest analogy one can think of, if the Minister rejects the analogy of food and clothing—set out the quality of the product in that they specify the calorific value of the gas supplied? Is there any reason why what is done successfully for gas, so far as we know, should not also be done for water?
Lord Hesketh: There is a slight difference between water and gas. I say that as a consumer myself. It is easier to see whether one is getting what one wishes in terms of a calorific value than as regards the rather more detailed provisions for water. The provisions for water are of a different nature to something which can be assessed against the cost of a heating bill. We believe that the system of allowing information on water quality to be freely available from undertakers, and for it to be consulted as often as consumers wish, is as good as printing a once-a-year result on the bill that is to be sent out

1327
to the consumer. I forgot to mention one thing. The calorific value constitutes one item on a gas bill. However, there would be 66 items on a water bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not understand why there should be 66 items on a water bill.
Lord Hesketh: There are 66 standards for water.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information could be provided by exception. It is only necessary for the water undertaker to indicate those elements which are no doubt very few, in which the water is short of the 66 standards. I do not find that argument convincing. I do not think it is good enough to require consumers to be active consumers. It is almost like saying that the Government will not put a health warning on cigarettes but will make available in Marsham Street and in local offices of the Department of the Environment, or in Elizabeth House and the local offices of the Department of Education, or in Alexander Fleming House and local offices of the Department of Health, information on the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The time to do this is at the point of sale.
I am astonished that the Government should reject this opportunity to reassure those water customers who are receiving water of good quality in respect of which there are no exceptions to be reported by obliging water authorities to notify them when there are exceptions and water falls short of the required quality. However, I do not think that it is a matter on which I should seek the opinion of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 321ZC:
Page 61, line 34, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) above shall not prescribe that any monitoring of the quality of water which a water undertaker supplies to premises for domestic purposes may be discounted for the purposes of section 52 above.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is no differentiation between different types of sample when it comes to testing for water quality. If an offence occurs in relation to the water consent conditions and those conditions are broken, the amendment would allow any water samples to be used in a prosecution against the private water company.
The Secretary of State has indicated that only those samples which are taken in order to show compliance with standards can be used. Therefore, a sample which was taken for a different purpose, for example for routine monitoring, which showed that those consent conditions had been broken could not be used in a prosecution. I suggest that that is flying in the face of common sense. If an offence has occurred any evidence should be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment would prevent any regulations made concerning a water undertaker's compliance with its duty to supply wholesome water
1328
from stating that certain monitoring may be discounted. The regulations will specify what monitoring must be carried out by a water undertaker. They will not specify that any of that monitoring may be discounted.
Operational monitoring will of course take place at the treatment works to ensure that treatment processes are operating correctly; but Section 52 concerns the quality of water as it is delivered to the customer. After water leaves a treatment works, it may be blended, or stored in a service reservoir and undergo significant changes in quality. What matters is the quality of water received by the consumer, and I can assure the Committee that if a sample is taken at a consumer's tap, for whatever reasons, and does not comply with a standard, the water in that sample will be legally unwholesome.
With that explanation, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the Minister has said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, as he appears to have accepted the point that any breach of consents should be punished. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 321ZD:
Page 62, line 26, after ("(a)") insert "without prejudice to paragraph (cc) below").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 321ZD and the subsequent amendment, Amendment No. 321ZE, concern information. Amendment No. 321ZD is self-explanatory. It requires the publication of data obtained during monitoring carried out under Clause 53( 1 )(b). While there is a limited power under Clause 53( 3 ) to make regulations for publicity purposes, it is not clear how those regulations would operate. There is provision for an annual summary in the draft regulations and for records in a supply zone to be made publicly available. That is restricted to data about samples taken to monitor compliance with standards. The amendment would require monitoring data from all samples to be made available no matter what the reason for taking those samples. I suggest that as the amendment relates to information about sampling which has already taken place there is no reason for the information not to be made available.
Lord Hesketh: These amendments would place a duty on the Secretary of State, when making regulations concerning the publication and provision of information by a water undertaker, to require the water undertaker to publish information on water quality data obtained while monitoring domestic water supplies.
I can give an assurance that the regulations now being prepared on this subject will specify information on water quality data which must be published and further information which must be available, and provided free of charge, to customers. I described this information in my response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on Monday when we debated the proposal for a local register of drinking water quality.

1329
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Addington: Having heard what the noble Lord said, I see that the only course of action on this occasion is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321ZE not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 321ZF:
Page 63, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of particular importance because Clause 54(4) states that:
"Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions".
This is an issue which has already excited a good deal of public concern because it means that any individual consumer is unable to bring action against a water undertaker for failure to comply with the duties set out in this clause. The purpose of the amendment is simply to eliminate subsection (4) so as to leave it open for prosecutions to be brought by anyone who has suffered as a result of water being supplied which is unfit for human consumption.
The amendment has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 321ZFA and 321ZFB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: On behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 321ZFA and 321ZFB which are grouped with the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
We share the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has expressed about Clause 54(4) in that, while creating a new offence of supplying water which is unfit for human consumption, it places the onus of prosecution for offences entirely with either the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That seems to us to be so restrictive as to nullify the real advantages which may flow from a provision of the kind which Clause 54 introduces.
We are perhaps more specific than the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in the two amendments in that rather than leaving out the subsection in its entirety, we have suggested a number of additions which would, in our opinion, in addition to the powers which have been given to the Secretary of State and Director of Public Prosecutions, allow, for example, the local authority in the area concerned to bring a prosecution and allow the customer service committees being established under the Bill or any consumer to ask any of the persons referred to in the subsection to request that proceedings be instituted.
The phrase "unfit for human consumption" has a certain ring about it for those of us who are intimate
1330
with the food trade. We are well aware of the fairly stringent rules that apply to food retailers as regards the quality of food that they offer for sale in their shops. We also know of the excellent protection that is afforded to the public at large by the environmental health officers of local authorities in ensuring that compliance with the standards necessary for the maintenance of a safe food trade are of a high order, evenly enforced and always backed, in the case of prosecution, by substantial evidence and the resources that the local authority is able to deploy in cases of that kind.
It seems to us that water being retailed which is unfit for human consumption is in no substantial degree different from food being retailed which is unfit for human consumption. In these two amendments, we therefore seek to extend the power of prosecution to local authorities and to give the added powers that we have mentioned to members of the public and to the customer services committees that have been established under the Bill. It is for those reasons that the amendments have been put down. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of Amendment No. 321ZF would be to allow any person or body to institute proceedings where a water undertaker supplies water unfit for human consumption. Amendment No. 321 ZFB would allow a local authority to institute proceedings as well as the Secretary of State and the DPP. Amendment No. 321ZFA would permit any consumer or customers services committee to request the Secretary of State, the DPP or a local authority to institute proceedings under Clause 54.
Clause 54 contains a new prosecution power. It has been generally welcomed as filling a gap which became apparent after the unfortunate incident at Camelford last year. No water that is unfit for human consumption should ever be delivered for drinking purposes. Hence the penalties for doing so may be substantial. The quality standards set in the drinking water regulations would probably have to be breached by a long way before water could be described as such as most of the standards are set well below any perceived health or other effects.
The clause as it stands restricts the power to prosecute to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. We have not extended the prosecution power to customers because they already have perfectly adequate means of obtaining redress against a water undertaker. If they suffer damage or injury either to themselves or their property and that can be traced to the poor quality of the water supply, they can sue for damages or loss under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. There is strict liability under that Act. They do not have to prove that the water undertaker was negligent, only that it provided substandard water which injured them or damaged their property. This seems to me to be a much more effective and direct route than a prosecution under this clause.
Here I think it is important to note that we propose that the prosecution power should extend to the Director of Public Prosecutions. He represents the

1331
public interest and enables the public to complain to someone other than the Secretary of State; and of course it is open for anyone to request the prosecuting body to institute proceedings against an undertaker.
As for local authorities, they already have an important role in safeguarding the quality of drinking water in their areas. Under the Bill, they will have a duty to monitor that quality and to notify the water undertaker if the water is unwholesome. Where they are not satisfied with the response, they have a duty to notify the Secretary of State. They will receive much more information about water quality and must be involved if there is any pollution incident. However, we have not given them the power to prosecute because that power should rest with the public authority which is charged with enforcing the quality standards. For public supplies, the Secretary of State—not the local authority—is the enforcing body. That prosecution power is one of the weapons that he can use to carry out that responsibility.
The enforcement duty in Clause 20 is a very effective means of ensuring that wholesome water is supplied as quickly as possible. Provided the undertaker is fulfilling the programme and the water is not a significant health risk in the meantime, there would be little point in prosecuting under Clause 54. However, if a local authority were empowered to prosecute, it might choose to do so in such circumstances. Such action would give contradictory messages to the undertaker and might lead it to shut down the supply to avoid the risk of prosecution while the improvement work was carried out. That is something that we would not wish to encourage.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to what he perceived to be a parallel with food. But, with regard to the parallel that has been drawn with local authorities' power to prosecute where food is unfit for human consumption, there are important distinctions from water as there is no equivalent of the proposed drinking water quality inspectorate on the food side; nor are there the very comprehensive enforcement duties available under Clause 20. It is for those reasons that I urge noble Lords to reject these amendments.
Lord Gallacher: I found the Minister's answer somewhat disappointing. It seems to me that, having included a provision that will create an offence for supplying water that is unfit for human consumption, he then went on to say that the standards for designating water as unfit for human consumption will be set so low that little use is likely to be made of the provision in any case. If that is protection for consumers, it seems to me at least to be of a most doubtful kind.
It is a fact that the clause specifically excludes water which is just unwholesome; the water must be of a very low standard. That is a much lower level of protection than consumers of food in this country are accustomed to receive and, in my opinion, entitled to expect. The alternative route mentioned by the Minister—namely, the Consumer Protection
1332
Act 1987—seems to me merely to complicate the issue. It may be a means for the consumer to use, but in my opinion it clouds the issue, particularly when local authority environmental health officers may be asked for advice and may be in the position of having to tell consumers that their only recourse is to make an approach to the Secretary of State.
I doubt whether the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is capable of being used in the way that the Minister mentioned. If it is so capable, it will inevitably bring the local authority into the picture. So, on the one hand, on the basis of the Minister's present attitude, there is exclusion of local authorities under Clause 54, and, on the other hand, his recommendation that they should be included by means of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. For me, that is a confusing situation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has his amendment before mine, I shall wait to see what he decides to do before deciding what I shall do with regard to the two amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Ross of Newport: It seems extraordinary to me that the Government are not prepared to allow local authorities to enter into proceedings where there has been pollution—possibly deliberate—of water which could have been avoided. It is a bureaucratic way of going about things to say that they must report the matter to the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that that is the only way to proceed. I see this as another way of saying to local authorities, "We don't want you any more". That seems to be the complete analysis of what is going on in all government thinking at the present time. The Government simply do not think that local authorities should play any role in the matter, but local authorities are the natural people to institute proceedings. They have the enforcement officers. They do the testing of water in most cases at the present time.
We now know that the National Rivers Authority may or may not employ the expertise of local authorities. We on this side think that that is absolutely daft and that it jolly well should do so because it is already set up. There will be enormous waste and duplication. We also wonder what is the role of the pollution inspectorate nowadays. I seems to me that that is muddied ground, but, quite frankly, why it is not possible to allow local authorities to institute proceedings is just beyond me. It seems absolutely daft.
Viscount Thurso: It seems to me that a very curious situation will arise when people come to inspect public houses and hotels because the local authority inspectors will test the whisky and someone else will test the water. It seems curious that the same inspector cannot test both articles that go into the same glass.
Lord Hesketh: He can.
Viscount Thurso: But he will not be able to prosecute—is that right?
Lord Hesketh: As I said earlier the local authorities have an important role to play in this matter. Certainly they could test the water at the same time as the whisky. If the water were unfit they would draw it to the Secretary of State's attention.
Viscount Thurso: But what guarantee is there that the Secretary of State will prosecute? None whatever.
Lord Hesketh: The object of the exercise is that they either comply or do not comply.
Lord Ezra: Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord set a very good standard of sympathy which he extended toward us in regard to a number of important amendments which had been moved. Unfortunately his ration of sympathy seems to have run out on this occasion. I think that we must take the matter a little further. I should have liked very much to have been able to withdraw this amendment but I do not think that I can do so.
The fact is that the track record of the enforcement of drinking water standards in this country so far has not been particularly good. There have been a number of relaxations introduced and we must take advantage of this fundamental legislation to tighten up the procedures. One way of tightening them up is not to restrict under this clause the possibilities of prosecution to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There seems to be absolutely no reason why local authorities which have a public health responsibility which they have discharged over the years and which have all the testing facilities should not be able to bring an action under this clause. It would come before the courts like any other action and if it were justified then fines would be imposed; if not, the case would drop.
I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether it is not right that some reference here should be made to the consumer indicating the means whereby, if not by direct action then indirectly, he could instigate or stimulate prosecution under this vital clause. Therefore in the light of the remarks that have been made on the subject and the vital nature of this clause, I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to take away what we have said, think about it a little more and come back at a later stage.
I understand that the noble Lord is not prepared to do that. In that case I very much regret that I must press the amendment.
6.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 321ZF) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 86.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Airedale, L.

David, B.

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Donoughue, L.

Birk, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carter, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ennals, L.

1334

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Phillips, B.

Ezra, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hampton, L.

Russell, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thurso, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Molloy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monson, L.

Underhill, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Warnock, B.

Nicol, B.

White, B.

Northfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mancroft, L.

Arran, E.

Margadale, L.

Auckland, L.

Marley, L.

Balfour, E.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bauer, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Butterworth, L.

Norrie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Pender, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pym, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Radnor, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Croft, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rees, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gisborough, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Grantchester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Strange, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hives, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Teynham, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Trafford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lyell, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Windlesham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 321ZFA and 321ZFB not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 321ZFBA:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation for consumers for water unfit for human consumption.
.—( 1 ) A water undertaker shall be liable to pay compensation to any consumer who has suffered damage, injury or other loss as a consequence of the supply of water which is unfit for human consumption as referred to in section 54 above.
(2) The liability under subsection (1) above shall apply in respect of any such damage, injury or loss suffered as a consequence of water supplied before the passing of this Act, where the supply was undertaken by an authority exercising functions transferred by this Act to the undertaker concerned.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the position of consumers who are entitled to compensation where they have suffered as a result of being supplied with water which is unfit for human consumption. Subsection (2) is particularly important because it requires that the new water undertakers shall inherit responsibilities for damages that may have occurred before privatisation.
Perhaps the most telling illustration of the need for this amendment is to remind Members of the Committee of the incident last year which involved Camelford and the surrounding area. On 6th July 1988 a consignment of aluminium sulphate—which is used for water treatment—was delivered to the wrong tank and so was released into the water supply. There followed immediate and serious effects on the population of the area; sickness, diarrhoea and other symptoms. The South West Water Authority eventually admitted liability and I understand that compensation has been paid in some cases.
However, the matter is by no means settled. There is anxiety about medium and long-term effects. A Department of Health team is currently working in the area. It has not yet completed its investigations. A report was due in March and has not yet appeared. Meanwhile symptoms displayed by some residents are associated with the kind of poisoning which results from this chemical: short-term memory loss, psychological disturbance and extreme muscle fatigue. GPs in the area are still monitoring their patients. It could therefore be some time before the full picture of the damage in that area is clear.
I understand that some small businesses have also suffered as a result of the illnesses of their owners. The tourist trade, which is important, is said to be affected. There were many visitors at the time; it was at the height of the holiday season. Some of those may yet prove to have been affected by the chemicals in the water which they drank at the time. If the link is established they too would have a claim.
It must therefore be right that the existing liability that has been admitted by the water authority should be carried forward in the Camelford case. It should survive the process of privatisation. I have chosen Camelford because it is known to Members of the Committee. However, there are other cases up and down the country that are awaiting a satisfactory outcome. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support my noble friend's amendment. I was in the Camelford area
1336
last August, almost immediately after this horrific happening, and know how much the population suffered—both tourists and the people who live there all the time. Camelford is an example. We wish to establish a principle. It was an inadvertent disaster, but such a catastrophe could happen again. We wish to establish that the principle of compensation for those who suffer—the need may not be immediate; it may come later—should be provided. With privatisation, we wish to be quite sure that the necessary commitment will be carried on into the future.
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this new clause is to make water undertakers liable to pay compensation to consumers who have suffered damage or loss as a result of being supplied with water unfit for human consumption. The second part of the new clause would make successor bodies liable where the loss was caused by water supplied by their predecessors.
I trust that the occasions when anyone receives water unfit for human consumption from a public water supply will be extremely rare and preferably non-existent. However, in such an event it is clearly right that people should be able to claim compensation for loss or damage just as they can when any other product is provided.
We believe that the amendment is not necessary as customers already have perfectly adequate means of obtaining redress from a water undertaker. If they suffer any damage or injury either to themselves or their property and this can be traced to the poor quality of the water supply, they can sue for damages or loss under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. There is strict liability under that Act. They do not have to prove that the company providing the product was negligent, only that the company provided a sub-standard product which injured them or damaged their property.
In future the courts are likely to consider water to be sub-standard if it does not meet the wholesomeness standards to be set out in the drinking water quality regulations. This is far wider than the phrase "unfit for human consumption" and will therefore give people more wide-ranging scope for claiming compensation.
In addition they can always claim under common law for loss caused by negligence on the part of the undertaker. If the undertaker has admitted negligence, it is simply a question of agreeing a figure. In the case of the Camelford incident last year—to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady David, drew our attention in proposing and supporting the amendment—I understand that the South West Water Authority has settled several hundred claims satisfactorily to a total value of about £75,000, without recourse to the courts.
I should like to make one further point on this part of the amendment. If the noble Baroness wishes to ensure a quick, certain means of obtaining compensation, then I do not think that the amendment will provide that as it would be necessary to obtain a court judgment on whether the water was unfit.

1337
As the phrase "unfit for human consumption" will have to be interpreted by the courts, no claims could be made until that point was settled first, which might be quite time-consuming. And as I have already said, the strict liability provisions in the Consumer Protection Act and the common law of negligence provide, we believe, simpler and wider methods of obtaining redress.
When the noble Baroness moved the amendment she said that she felt that subsection (2) was the more important of the two sections. We believe that the provision is unnecessary because the Bill provides that on the transfer date schemes made under Schedule 2 of the Bill will come into force. Those schemes will transfer to the successor companies the property, rights, and, in this case most importantly, liabilities of their predecessor water authorities in respect of their water supply and sewerage functions. The schemes will also provide that legal proceedings commenced against the water authority may be continued against the successor company. The transfer of the water supply and sewerage functions of the water authorities to these successor companies will in no way affect the ability of people to seek redress under the law in the normal way for any damage or injury suffered as a result of the action of the water authorities.
I hope that with those two explanations the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend replies—she will of course deal with the amendment as she sees fit—is the Minister telling the Committee not only that there is no need for this provision but that if it were written on the face of the Bill it would be detrimental to the interests of water consumers? Is he saying that to give effect to this new clause would cause delay and would be vexatious?
Is he also telling us that there are already adequate means for the aggrieved person to sue for loss? Does that mean that every individual who considers that he has suffered a hurt will have to take out separate procedings? If that is the case and we are concerned about a Camelford kind of error—human error, as we know, but negligence in the sense that the error was allowed to happen—are we to take it that should there be another incident (my noble friend has said that these things can happen again) the privatised company will act in the same way as the publicly owned company acted in this example? The Minister was kind enough to indicate the speed with which settlements had been reached and the size of those settlements. If he is telling us that the consumer in a Camelford kind of incident would be no worse off in future but that if the amendment was on the face of the Bill the consumer would be worse off because proceedings would be delayed, I think he should spell that out.
Lord Hesketh: Perhaps I should repeat what I said earlier. I was saying in relation to time that litigation is always lengthy. That is a fact and there is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Graham, attempting to question me further about it. He suggests that there will be some change in the approach of trying to settle out of court. My experience is that all people
1338
would prefer to settle out of court rather than engage in vast legal undertakings. I am sure that the successor company to the authority involved at Camelford would do exactly the same as the water authority in Camelford has.
Baroness Nicol: I confess that I am a little disappointed at having the Consumer Protection Act invoked in this case. However, I should like to read carefully what the noble Lord has said, especially in relation to the second part of my amendment. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 55 [Provision of water where piped supplies insufficient or unwholesome]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 321ZFC:
Page 63, line 29, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The effect of it is to delete subsection (2). Clause 55(2) deals with the provision of water where piped supplies are insufficient or unwholesome. The subsection that we seek to delete reads:
"Where under subsection (1) above a local authority requires the provision by a water undertaker of a supply of water to any premises, that authority shall be liable to the undertaker for any charges payable by virtue of Chapter IV of this Part in respect of the provision of that supply; but shall have power to recover the whole or any part of any charges paid by virtue of this subsection from the owner or occupier of the premises to which the supply is provided".
Clause 55 requires undertakers, when required by local authorities, to supply water for domestic purposes other than by pipes in cases where existing supplies are insufficient or unwholesome and where piped supplies would be impracticable at reasonable cost. While the general principle of the clause appears sound, concern is directed to the problem that arises when an undertaker's supply becomes deficient and is not capable of reinstatement at any reasonable cost. In those circumstances the water undertaker may find it lucrative to pay the £5 a day penalty imposed by the Secretary of State for breach of supply conditions, while at the same time charging a local authority for providing the same consumers with an alternative supply. Such a situation could continue indefinitely. By accepting the proposed amendment the possibility of such a situation arising could be prevented. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not wish to anticipate the amendment which I shall be moving next, which is on a somewhat different point, but I feel obliged to point out that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) provides that,
"power to recover the whole or any part of any charges paid … from the owner or occupier of the premises to which the supply is provided"
may be making provision for the impossible to take place.
Lord Hesketh: Clause 55 provides that, in certain cases, where it is not practicable at reasonable cost

1339
for a water undertaker to provide a sufficient supply of wholesome water for domestic purposes to particular premises through its pipes, it may be obliged to provide a supply of water by alternative means. This would normally mean providing a supply of water by means of tanker or standpipe. A local authority is required to notify the undertaker of premises in its area where the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing water supply is such as to be a danger to health. The local authority would be liable to meet the undertaker's charges for providing the alternative supply but would be able to recover them from the owner or occupier provided with the supply of water.
The effect of this amendment would remove the liability of a local authority and ultimately an owner or occupier for any charges payable in cases where a water undertaker is required to provide a supply of water to premises other than by pipe.
The circumstances when an undertaker would be required to provide a supply of water other than by pipes would generally involve the failure of a private water supply. A private supply may become unwholesome or insufficient for domestic purposes and thereby constitute a danger to health. Because of the location of the properties served by the private supply, it may not be feasible for the undertaker to provide a supply of water for domestic purposes by pipe. In these situations the undertaker would be required to provide a supply of water by alternative means, usually by standpipe or tanker.
It seems to me wholly reasonable that in these circumstances the undertaker should be able to recover the charges it incurs from the local authority that required the alternative supply to be made. It is also reasonable that the local authority should be able to recover part or all of these charges from the owner or occupier provided with the supply. This would be the first occasion that the undertaker had been involved in providing a supply of water to the owner or occupier concerned. If the undertaker is not to be able to recover his charges, the costs would have to be borne by consumers in general. In the light of this explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is not a matter of great moment. At this stage in the Bill we are probing what will happen in certain circumstances. Can the Minister say a little more about whether the circumstances I have outlined could occur only with private water supplies? Surely in future they will all be private water supplies. None will be municipally owned, nationalised or publicly owned. So can the Minister tell us more? The Minister pleads that the costs have been incurred because an alternative source of supply has been required. Surely we must not make too heavy weather about the desire of a local authority or any public body trying to insist that there shall be a continuous supply of water for consumption either by the domestic or the non-domestic user. If he could say something, the Minister would be helping the Committee.
Lord Hesketh: I fully accept that the term "private supply" as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has
1340
presented it is slightly confusing. When we reach the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton an example of the private supply to which I am referring here would be a well on a private property that may supply a number of other houses. When we refer to a private supply in future we shall have a private undertaking, a plc, which has its obligations to fulfil anything connected to it. This is a private supply which, in effect, is a private private supply, if I may put it in those terms.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Well, well, well! That is the best the Committee will get tonight, and that is not very good. In view of the explanation that the Minister has given to the Committee I shall read what he has said, take some advice and possibly return to the subject again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 56 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness White: I wish to ask a question about the clause. I was surprised that no amendments had been tabled although I understand that some have been considered. I believe that the Committee is entitled to know from the Minister what the Government believe the local authorities should be undertaking as regards monitoring and reporting upon the water quality in their areas.
I understand that the clause carries forward responsibilities under Section 11 of the Water Act 1973. Under that Act it is an obligation of the appropriate local authority to monitor the quality of water supply for domestic consumption. I am advised that the reality of the situation has been that although a number of local authorities have highly qualified staff and adequate laboratory facilities, that is by no means universally true. In carrying forward the responsibility the Government do not appear to consider that anything is necessary to improve the facilities of the local authorities to enable them properly to discharge their responsibility. Some of the authorities have neither the analytical resources nor the professional expertise necessary to undertake the full range of responsibilities which may still be required.
In respect of earlier clauses the Committee has discussed the relationship between the department and the new drinking water inspectorate and technical assessors referred to in the Bill and the reluctance or refusal of the Goverment to consider that the director general may have some responsibilities. Some of my acquaintances in the water industry have responsibilities for monitoring and reporting.
In Clause 56 we are concerned with the local authorities. Later in the clause we come across the "may" and "shall" syndrome. Subsections (5) and (6) contain the vaguely permissive power of the Secretary of State because he may make regulations if he feels so disposed, or in appropriate circumstances.
I believe that we should not swallow the clause without any examination or explanation from the

1341
Government about where they believe local authorities will fit in the future. How do they regard responsibilities under this legislation as differing from those carried forward from earlier legislation? It was passed in 1973 in circumstances entirely different from those which we are now contemplating in the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to give a specific example which may be helpful to the Committee. The environmental health department of a local authority is responsible for many aspects of health. I am grateful to my local authority in East Lothian in Scotland. It came to my assistance when I sought to have a full analysis of the water taken from my private supply to 40 houses. I did so because until recently none of us thought of aluminium as being poisonous.
I am grateful that such a service can be provided by the local authority. I know that this sample will be sent to the national physics laboratory, but, nonetheless, I have had assistance in obtaining a full analysis of the water. Therefore I can satisfy myself and my neighbours that it is drinkable, and that is a tremendous help. It is the kind of function which should remain in the hands of the local authorities because I believe that they do an excellent job.
I hope that my example will help the Committee. People with private supplies of water should have them analysed from time to time. In my case, the last analysis was 20 years ago.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Baroness, Lady White, has rendered the Committee a service by reminding us of the special nature of Clause 56. Its opening words state:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for keeping themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies".
I should like to know the meaning of the phrase "keeping themselves informed". What are the parameters? Is it the duty of the local authorities to monitor the activities of the National Rivers Authority and the Director General of Water Services? Are they to keep an eye on what the Government are doing through the Secretary of State? If the authorities were ever taken to court for failing in their duties to keep themselves informed would they have a defence? Can the Minister say where he sees the hierarchy of the local authorities in the pecking order of responsibilities in the supply and maintenance of good quality water?
Clause 56 is peppered with duties placed upon the local authorities. I do not remember whether the noble Baroness, Lady White, alluded to the resources required by local authorities but she has long experience of such matters. Perhaps it is the case that the words are idle, that they are just words on a piece of paper and that local authorities will have no responsibility; or, as I suspect, they could well be the fall guys available when things go wrong and someone is looking to place the blame.
1342
The Minister has not accepted duties which Members of this side of the Committee have sought to lay upon a range of other bodies. It is clear that in the scheme of things the Government see a major role to be played by local authorities. Clause 56 covers almost a page and a half of the Bill and some important regulations must be carried out and overseen by local authorities. The Minister would do a service to the Bill and the Committee because many local authorities will be anxious to know of the additional burdens which are being placed on them in their role as overseers.
Nobody is better equipped than the local authorities to look after the interests of those who live in the locality, and they have vast experience in doing so. However, they need the resources to do it. Can the Minister say whether the rate support grant will contain such an element in the future, thereby better enabling local authorities to carry out their responsibilities? Will the Minister simply say, "We already give them adequate sums of money. They will have to decide how they use it. If they decide to be less generous in its use in this role in order to carry out another, the consumer will suffer"?
Lord Hesketh: The clause imposes duties on local authorities to keep themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of all water supplies in their areas. It sets out the procedure to be followed if a local authority has reason to believe that any water undertaker's supply is unwholesome or insufficient. Regulations to be made under the clause will require and enable local authorities to obtain information about the quality and sufficiency of water supplies in their areas. They will also set out how they are to perform their functions under the clause. Among the matters which may be covered in the regulations are the frequency of sampling and the recovery of costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out their duties. I am sure that will be welcomed.
The regulations to be made under this clause will entitle local authorities to receive regular information from water undertakers on every water supply zone in their area. This information will cover the general quality of water, the extent of compliance with standards in the regulations and the progress of any programmes of action to achieve compliance. If there is an incident in the water supply which may create a health risk in the area, the supplier must notify the authority. Local authorities will thus be able to ask for all the information they need about the standard of drinking water in their area.
Local authorities have a long tradition of interest in water supplies. They already play an important part in monitoring the quality of drinking water in their area. This clause will help to clarify and strengthen that role, enabling them to carry out their responsibilities much more easily. Local authorities will also have a direct route to the Secretary of State if they are not satisfied that their public water supply is wholesome. I therefore commend this clause to the Committee.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any difference between the

1343
responsibilities which fall to the local authorities under this legislation and the responsibilities which they have carried out under the 1973 legislation. What difference to their responsibilities will be made, if any, by the fact that there is to be this new drinking water inspectorate? That is an innovation and one supposes that it will have some effect on the responsibilities of the local authorities. Perhaps the Government do not believe that it will make any difference at all. However, I still feel concern that, as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton rightly emphasised, local authorities are being asked, without having any additional resources made available to them as far as we can judge, to continue to carry very considerable responsibilities, some of which must impinge on or overlap in some way with the changes made to the organisation of water supplies under this Bill.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness asked her question in two parts. As regards the first, as the noble Baroness pointed out when she intervened earlier, there were no amendments down to this clause and I have a considerable amount of information upon it but I do not have the relationship with the 1973 Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that statement and will accept a letter from me in order to clarify the question which she asked.
I fear that she did not hear what I said about cost. Even the noble Lord, Lord Graham, smiled earlier when I made it absolutely clear that among the matters which may be covered in the regulations are the frequency of sampling and the recovery of costs incurred by local authorities in carrying out their duties.
Baroness White: From where will they recover the cost of routine sampling? The first two lines on page 64 state:
"It shall be the duty of a local authority to notify any water undertaker of anything appearing to the authority to suggest",
and there are then a number of conditions which might appear to the local authority to suggest that something is not as satisfactory as it should be. This seems to me to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Government are altering the whole structure of the water supply industry, including drinking water and including setting up a completely new section of a department. They have not apparently taken into account the duties, responsibilities and costs of the local authorities. From whom are the local authorities to recover the cost of providing analytical facilities if they do not already have them and how are they to provide adequate staff with proper qualifications in a situation where the problems of water pollution are becoming more sophisticated almost every day?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister believes that I will accept that the cost to a local authority, which this clause lays down, can be dealt with by saying that, where a local authority requests or demands samples of water in order to see whether there is compliance with standards, the costs of
1344
commissioning those samples will be recoverable. That will only be a part of the role. We know that people will be involved. If the job is to be done at all, it must be done well and must be seen to be done well.
If the Minister wishes to avoid a vote on whether the clause shall stand part, he must acknowledge that, in addition to recovering the cost of samples, other costs will be involved. There will be the costs of running a new department. These costs must either be borne in general or there must be an allowance for them in the rate support grant. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that this is another instance of more and more duties being piled on the local authority without adequate resources being made available.
Lord Hesketh: There is a source of charge and a source of revenue. One anticipates that the source of charge will be met in part by the charge for the testing of private supplies; the revenue support grant will need to take account of extra costs for local authorities arising from this Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Clause 56(1) states:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for keeping themselves informed about the wholesomeness and sufficiency of water supplies provided to premises in their area, including every private supply to any such premises."
The Minister believes that merely to take the water and sample it will fulfil all the requirements, but that will not be the position. There is the cost of running the department. Clause 56(4) states:
"It shall be the duty of a local authority to comply with any direction given by the Secretary of State".
It will not be possible to pass on the costs of doing that sort of thing. The Minister is telling us that the only way that there can be a recovery of money is by giving a bill to the people who have caused it to happen. Is the Minister able to be any more helpful?
Lord Hesketh: No, and I shall not be able to be of much more help. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is labouring under a misapprehension that the charge for a test will only be in the case of a test which fails. My understanding is that there will be a charge for the test.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I know that the Minister has gone as far as he can. I am certain that there will be local authorities outside and local authority associations which will view with dismay that the only way in which a local authority will be able to recover the cost of complying with this clause is by recovering it from such sources as the undertakers. I can envisage that before any samples are undertaken a local authority may have two or three people or £40,000 or £50,000 worth of human resources who will run the department. There is therefore that cost, as well as the physical cost of undertaking the monitoring, which will be inordinate.
My noble friend Lady White said that this is the only opportunity whereby we can deal with the generality of the clause. We have not sought to amend it. We simply want the Minister to explain

1345
what it means. What the Minister appears to have said is that in practice this is an additional burden on local authorities without the authorities being able to get back the money.
Baroness White: Perhaps I may say a few words before the Minister amplifies his reply, as I hope he will. This clause gives the Secretary of State extremely wide powers to impose duties, to regulate the performance of any duty, to prescribe the matters to be taken into account by local authorities in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) what is appropriate, and so on. There is not a word about any obligation on the Secretary of State to see that the local authorities are in any way recompensed for the duties that he unilaterally imposes on them.
Lord Hesketh: I think this is now the third time that I have said this. The Bill does not impose any new burdens on local authorities in respect of public supplies, only for private supplies; and establishment charges and overheads can be recovered when private supplies are sampled. Most of the costs of local authorities are likely to relate to these supplies.
Baroness White: Surely the private supplies are dealt with under Clause 57?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If she really wants answers to these detailed questions surely it would be much more satisfactory for the Committee, and everyone else, if she were to table amendments. The Minister would then be able to give a proper answer.
Baroness White: We are on clause stand part and it is the only way possible for any of us to raise these matters.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am sorry to cross swords with the noble Baroness. It is possible to table probing amendments just as everyone else does. The Minister can then give a reply.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord has put his own words to the test because he has tabled page after page of amendments, and that is his method of obtaining answers. It is not ours. I am not prepared to say that he is wrong; but I am prepared to say that it is another way of doing it. If the noble Lord is inviting us to table a further 100 amendments to the 300 that we have already tabled, we shall certainly consider it. There are different ways of dealing with different situations. The Minister has done his best, but his replies are certainly not acceptable to me or, I believe, to those outside the Committee. However, he has done his best and we leave it at that.
Clause 56 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: The Committee may feel that this is an appropriate moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage for the Bill at 8.5 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1989
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved—[16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, international conventions provide for the free movement of traffic between countries which are party to the conventions. In this country the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order (made under provisions in the International Circulation Act 1952) prescribes the detail of the various documents, fees, minimum ages and enforcement arrangements, etc. which apply to our residents who wish to drive abroad and visitors from abroad who wish to drive here.
The principal order giving effect to those arrangements is the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975. The order which is now before the House is necessary to deal with a point raised by the European Commission in respect of visitors driving heavy goods and public service vehicles. In addition, provision is made for an increase in the fees paid for international driving permits and certificates.
In Article 4, visitors to Great Britain who hold valid foreign driving licences or convention driving permits may drive vehicles covered by their licence or permit for a period of 12 months from the date they last entered the country. This arrangement was limited in the case of heavy goods or public service vehicles temporarily imported.
Following a case which arose in Northern Ireland last year, it was drawn to our attention by the European Commission that such a restriction, when applied to residents of member states of the European Community, is in breach of Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome (free movement of workers). Article 4 amends Article 2 of the 1975 order to close this breach by allowing residents of member states who hold an appropriate licence or permit to drive heavy goods and public service vehicles regardless of whether or not they are temporarily imported.
To allow for increased costs since 1985, under Article 5 fees for the issue of international driving permits and certificates for motor vehicles are increased from £2.50 to £3. These permits and certificates are issued by the AA, RAC, RACS and the National Breakdown Recovery Club.
I hope that briefly explains the main changes made by this order. The rest of the order is largely repetitive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved. [16th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we are certainly grateful to the Minister for explaining the order. I read the explanatory note on the principal effects of the order, then I looked at the size of the order and I wondered

1347
whether it was as simple as the explanatory note suggested. However, the Minister has made the position clear.
I take it that if a person comes in from, say, France he can drive a PSV or HGV if he holds the appropriate licence in that country; but if anyone came from Sweden, similarly qualified he could only do so if bringing in a vehicle temporarily.
My only other question relates to paragraph 3 of Article 4 which deals with the BFG licences. Again, to make the position absolutely clear, I presume this refers to a person who has a public service vehicle driving licence. However, paragraph 3(b) refers to,
"any other such person, a public service vehicle brought temporarily into Great Britain".
This refers to a member of the forces who has a public service vehicle driving licence. Therefore, does this refer to dependants who may be resident in the UK or Great Britain? To whom does that paragraph (b) apply?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we also express our gratitude to the Minister for so clearly explaining this apparently complicated piece of paper. I should just like to ensure that the order makes clear that anyone who is disqualified in another country will not be allowed to operate in this country and presumably vice versa. With that safeguard we shall not resist the order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception given to this apparently complicated but straightforward order. To answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, yes, a Frenchman coming to this country would be allowed to drive, say, an HGV which he brought into this country, as he is able to do now, and he will also be allowed to drive a vehicle which is already here, so to speak. That would not apply to a non-EC national who would only be allowed to do what he is at present doing—that is, to drive a temporarily imported vehicle.
BFG licences are issued to dependants of servicemen in Germany. Therefore, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would apply to dependants who are non-EC nationals. They would be treated as they are now.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to disqualification. Of course, drivers have to be in possession of a valid licence. If that licence is taken away by authorisation in a foreign country, the holder would not be permitted to drive in this country.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 to 8.5 p.m.]

Water Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 57 [Remedial powers of local authorities in relation to private supplies]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 321ZG:
Page 66. line 25. at end insert—
("(6A) In exercising the powers conferred by this section a local authority shall take full account of the rights and obligations of the relevant persons under contracts, agreements or licences entered into by those persons and the availability thereunder of water fit for human consumption.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will add a new subsection which will become subsection (6A) to Clause 57. The subsection itself is simple and self-explanatory in its terms; but the reasons for it are less so. I hope that the Committee will bear with me for a short while as I attempt to explain the reasons for it. Clause 57 extends the powers that district councils already have under other branches of the law—mainly the housing law—to ensure that domestic premises are provided with wholesome and adequate water supplies. This clause introduces a new principle by allowing district councils to take enforcement action not only against the owner or lessee of the domestic premises concerned which need water, but also against the owner of the land from which the water has to come.
It appears from the terms of Clause 57 that that enforcement action may be taken even though there was a physical impossibility in the owner of the land providing the water or at any rate potable water and, even though it were possible to provide the water, it would be unreasonably costly to require him to do so. The circumstances vary greatly in which premises can be occupied but the water supplied from a source outside those premises and not on the land on which the premises stand. It would be impossible to enumerate all the different circumstances that can arise.
Perhaps I may give some examples from which it may be thought that it would be unfair to require the landowner to guarantee a supply of water which, as I say, may not even be available. Let us consider the case of an agreement between a landowner and the owner of a nearby house which may be on or off the estate. That agreement may do no more than entitle the house owner to make use of a spring or a well on adjacent land and perhaps give him access as necessary to the land to repair any pipes, pumps or other equipment.
That is one possibility. Another example arises in that it is very rare for private agreements to supply water to make any reference to the quality or quantity of the water supplied. It has always been assumed that water would be available and that it would be of potable quality. The introduction of a new law placing an onus on the supplier to ensure that the supply is both wholesome and adequate could pose a serious problem for him. That could be the case unless he is given power to recover from the consumer of the water in the domestic premises any costs incurred in carrying out the necessary work—if it can be done, which is not always possible as I shall go on to explain.
A third example is that even where an agreement specifies that the supplier of water gives no guarantee as to its quality or abundance of supply—I have been given a copy of an actual conveyance in which there is such a clause excluding liability—under Clause 57 it would be possible for the district council to require the supplier to take remedial action at his expense.
My fourth example is that in many cases an agreement to supply water is in the form of a contract of doubtful legality and enforceability as between the parties. It may have worked in the past, but only because the parties have either been unaware of its enforceability or have decided amicably just to overcome its terms. The introduction of powers to place entirely new obligations on the supplier under this clause could present legal difficulties which may be impossible to resolve.
So much for examples, which I am told have actually arisen along the lines of the four which I have given. Let us just consider the physical difficulties which can arise. Perhaps I may say here that I speak from my own experience of the family property which happens not to be in England or Wales but in Scotland. We had a hill with three wells on it. They had never been known to dry up even in a dry summer. Then the land upon which the wells stood was let to the Forestry Commission on a long lease. The conifers were so thirsty that in a dry season—that is, about every season in four—the wells dried up. Of course we tried to be decent and spent huge sums of money on having water brought in in a tanker from about four miles away—it was a round trip of nine miles—to replenish the wells so that the people in a cottage which was let had their water. However, that would not always be possible.
You can have the situation in which you get a series of droughts which simply dry up the water supply, whether or not trees have been planted above the wells. There may be nothing in any agreement between the landowner, the tenant or perhaps even the sub-tenant to cover that situation.
There is another physical problem which can arise. It arises in flatter counties and in Scotland, paradoxically enough. In the Fens the water table has a habit of going up and down like a yo-yo according to the season. You can have a situation in the Fens in which springs will dry up—indeed, you can have that too on the clay land in East Anglia—and so you can find that what had been assumed to be a constant source of supply actually fails.
One could multiply such cases, but I shall add only one more. It is a not unfamiliar one. It concerns development of one kind or another. Even in rural areas the large extension of a village can cause the immediately local supplies to be over-used, so that the natural supply through the wells or springs which were there is no longer adequate bearing in mind the greatly increased consumption through development.
Some Members of the Committee may be able to add to those examples. However, I hope that I have pointed out enough to my noble friend on the Front Bench so that he will realise that it simply would not
1350
be fair and reasonable to require the owner of the land to carry out the wish—no doubt a laudable wish—of the local authority, which is accompanied by enforcement provisions under Clause 57.
I understand—and it is understandable—that the Government expect Clause 58 to be used by the landowner concerned to appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice given by the local authority. But, of course, if that was so, it would still leave landowners with the cost of appealing, the delay involved—which may not be good for the domestic user—and with the uncertainty of the appeal. That does not seem to some of us to be a satisfactory solution; that is, to rely simply upon Clause 58 to overcome the sort of circumstances which I have tried to describe.
Therefore we say that Clause 57 should be amended so as to avoid inequity and legal problems which could arise if the statutory notices issued by the local authority conflict either with existing private contracts or with the physical conditions which have arisen as a result of change.
Therefore I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree that—I need not read out the whole amendment because it is there for Members of the Committee to see and it will appear in Hansard—to ask the local authority merely to take full account of the rights and obligations of the people concerned under existing contracts, or future contracts, and to take account of the availability of water fit for human consumption, is not unreasonable. I beg to move.
Lord Middleton: As an owner of a private supply which is piped from springs emerging not from my noble friend's Fens but from the Yorkshire chalk, I know something of the benefits of such a system. I also know something of the problems. I agree wholeheartedly with the duty which Clause 57 lays upon the local authority to supervise the adequacy and the quality of private water supplies. I further agree that there should be remedial powers. However, as my noble friend explained, subsection (3) enables the local authority to charge the cost of remedying a faulty supply, not only to the owner of the premises but also the owner or occupier of the land where the source is situated.
At first sight, this might seem fair. A man buys a house which takes its water from a nearby spring and, for some reason, something goes wrong with the spring. The local authority requires the supply to be put right and the cost is to be borne by the owner of the land from which the spring arises. But, as I know only too well, springs are not always reliable. They do not flow for ever. The owner of the supply, if he had been prudent when he sold the house, may have agreed with the purchaser that there could be no guarantee as to the quantity or quality of water from his spring. As my noble friend has explained, this kind of agreement is quite common in such circumstances.
My noble friend has explained the legal difficulties that might arise when the onus which is placed by Clause 57 on the owner of the source of supply is at variance with any contractual obligations. I can envisage a case where the owner of premises whose

1351
private water supply is below standard is being required by the district council to connect up with the nearest mains supply. It would be perfectly possible, as the clause is now written, for the council to charge part or all of the cost of connection to the owner of the private supply, which when it got to the premises was defective in some respect. Yet there may have been an agreement, to which the owner of the premises was a party, specifying that the supply could not be guaranteed.
It must be right for a local authority, when deciding who should bear the cost of remedying a faulty supply, to take account of the contractual rights and obligations of the relevant persons. I agree with my noble friend that such a duty might very well avoid the inevitable costly appeal procedure provided for by Clause 58.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether I may raise one further point on this subject. I hope that under the definition of "relevant persons" in subsection (7) the costs would be evenly divided between the owners and occupiers of all the premises which draw water from that supply. Then at least the costs would be shared. As has already been said, many private persons may own the water supply but we have no guarantee that a spring will continue to flow for ever.
The owners and occupiers of premises where the source is situated, who are referred to in line 30 on page 66, may have very little to do with the supply, partly because water usually has to flow a fair distance downhill before there is sufficient pressure in the pipes to enable it to reach the roof tanks that most of us have on our houses.
In my own case, the source of supply is two miles away from the estate and the owners and occupiers of premises away up there draw their water from other sources which have nothing to do with me. I hope that if the source dries up or becomes polluted not only can the cost be shared but that some sort of grant will be available for us to be able to connect up to a water undertaker's supply, whatever it may be.
Lord Wynford: I should like to express strong support for the words which were used by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Middleton in their argument of this case. This is perhaps a more widespread and important problem than some noble Lords realise. There are very great differences between those who have always known mains supply and those who have never known such supply and have always had to rely on private supplies. The one may not be fully aware of what the other has been doing, perhaps over hundreds of years. So I make no excuse for taking a little of the Committee's time to enlarge on this matter.
It is a widespread problem because private supplies have been developed over such a long time. They started at all sorts of different periods and in all sorts of different ways, but with the same object in view. The main was not available, but God's supply in the positioning of springs was available and people drew on those springs. But they all had one similarity. They all had aquifers below their
1352
feet. Where there are aquifers there are springs, and it was the springs that the people were using.
Chalkland, limestone, sandstone and green sand—if you put all these areas together all over the United Kingdom you have a very large number of systems. Some of them are very large, some are medium and some are small. I cannot quote acreages and square mileages for the whole, but it is a very large proportion of the total farming interest in the agricultural land of the United Kingdom. According to the Water Authorities Association—this is the only figure that I can quote to noble Lords—80,000 separate such supplies exist, but that means very little without being able to say what is the size of each.
If you go to the top end of the scale, whole groups of farms were run on this system and still are. In some cases, they have been broken up somewhat and the units are therefore smaller. But—and this is important—they did, and do, handle the water needs. First, there are the needs of humans, whether or not they are employed on the constituent farms of a group. Some of them—quite large numbers—are now not in any way deployed on the constituent farms. There are then all the stock in the buildings and out in the fields. Then come the dairy stock. If I may declare an interest, I have a milking herd of 150 cows. In warm weather, those cows will consume eight gallons of water in as many minutes—not all the time, but in large gulps during the day. This gets into big quantities of water.
We then have the water meadow situation, not all of which, unfortunately, is still working. But the fact is that water was used from these springs, channelling down across the farms on a falling contour, gradually dropping over several miles in some cases, watering those water meadows in February, in the cold weather, when the temperature of that water was about two degrees higher than the temperature of the air all the way down. That brought on the early grass, but in those days the water did not have the nitrates about which we now worry. I hope that I have demonstrated that a large variety of schemes have worked for many years. They were run by common sense and forbearance. If hiccups occurred and there were droughts, and so forth, common sense and forbearance were brought to bear. We are now moving into the age of obligations. Everything must be codified by strict law. That may be necessary, but it begins to make difficulties in the areas that I have described.
A priority for capital investment to bring in mains should be worked out in the near future. If there is likely to be trouble, the mains must be brought in. In those areas former agricultural accommodation -houses, rectories, and so forth—are full of people who need an increased water supply. It is outside the strictly agricultural demand. They sometimes forget that they bought a dwelling which the mains do not reach and that consequently the purchase price was that much lower.
I strongly support the amendment. It has great merit. We all look with alarm and despondency at the water authority boreholes which surround people in those areas. They let down into aquifers, and one

1353
of these days, at short notice, we shall suddenly find that our springs slacken. If they do, that will be the owner's problem. What price then would there be on common sense and forbearance? That may carry a message for a later amendment.
Fair and reasonable treatment is needed on the face of the Bill. We cannot rely on the appeals system. It is not good enough. The provision must be on the face of the Bill for everyone to read and note.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: I support the amendment for all the reasons which were so well put by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Middleton. What sticks in my gullet is that this provision would override agreements that have been entered into. To me that is more important than wells drying up and the unreasonable expense that might be incurred by individuals supplying water privately. I do not like the idea of arrangements properly entered into being, so to speak, blotted out, as they appear to be in the clause. I support the amendment.
Lord Hesketh: The amendment is concerned with the powers of local authorities under Clause 57 to serve notices on owners or recipients of a private water supply requiring them to take certain action to improve the supply to comply with the drinking water quality standards. The amendment would require local authorities to take account of the rights and obligations of those owners and recipients of the supply, and also whether the water was fit for human consumption.
My noble friend Lord Renton has explained intentions behind the amendment with his usual clarity. The points he made are clearly very practical ones which need to be taken into account. My noble friend covered, as did other noble Lords, a broad spectrum. We certainly do not want to precipitate a situation where people are being deprived of a water supply as a result of local authorities using their powers under the clause.
We fully recognise that private supplies have very varied histories and circumstances, and that it is not possible to draft legislation tailor-made for each circumstance. However, the clause has been drafted in a way which covers all those circumstances and allows the local authority to tailor its action under the clause to the circumstances of the particular supply. There will also of course be powers to relax the standards wherever the breach is caused by natural circumstances and there is no public health risk.
Perhaps I may give an example of this flexibility. The example of a supply provided free of charge by an estate owner to properties which have been sold out of the estate is a useful one. The supply might not be complying with microbiological standards, and the best solution would be to install disinfection at the source rather than at each property served by it. The owner of the supply might not be able to recover the costs of this from the people benefiting from the supply, either because of their traditional rights to a free supply or because of the terms of a
1354
contract or licence limiting this. In such a case the local authority under the provisions of subsections (3)(c) and (d) could serve a notice on those being supplied requiring them to reimburse the owner of the supply the whole cost of the improvements.
If for any reason anyone served with a notice by a local authority is unhappy with the notice, he has only to write to the local authority objecting to the notice. That has the effect of referring the matter to the Secretary of State for decision. The Secretary of State may hold a local inquiry and has wide powers not to confirm the notice at all, to relax the standards, to confirm the notice with modifications and to direct the local authority to serve a specified notice on anyone not so served already. So there will be ample opportunity for anyone not satisfied with the local authority's proposal to put his case to an independent person.
Having described this appeal procedure, I am sure that local authorities will not wish matters to reach such a pitch. They will wish to use these powers with discretion to avoid creating a situation where there is a risk of water supplies being cut off, or a manifestly unfair result. The department will be writing to local authorities advising them of those provisions, and will draw their attention to matters such as those raised in this debate.
We have spent some time on the subject and I should like to read carefully what noble Lords have said. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Renton: Yes, I am sure that my noble friends and I are grateful for that assurance. I should like to thank them and the Minister for the consideration that they have given to this rather difficult matter. Before withdrawing the amendment perhaps I may say that I hope he will bear in mind the following three points: first, the point made by my noble friend Lord Radnor that we must be very careful not to interfere with existing agreements to which of course the local authority was not a party and of which it might have been quite ignorant when it made its decision.
The second point is that I appreciate what my noble friend says about the fairly elaborate terms of Clause 57, but I do not think he will find among those terms the specific obligation on the part of the local authority to consider the availability of water provided independently of the owner of the domestic premises. They may not even be premises owned by the person from whose land the water comes.
My third and last point is that in further considering the matter I hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind the overriding point that by adding the amendment or something like it to the Bill he will save a lot of time, trouble and administration. If local authorities are obliged to take account of what is in the amendment, then they are less likely to create a situation in which the owner of the land providing the water has to appeal to the Secretary of State. So there would be a saving of administration if we accept the amendment. I am grateful to my

1355
noble friend and look forward to the Government tabling a proposal, perhaps at the Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Assessors for the enforcement of water quality]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 321ZGA:
Page 69, leave out lines 12 to 14 and insert—
("(1) The Director shall for the purposes of this section appoint persons to act on his behalf as Drinking Water Quality Assessors in relation to—")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 321ZGA I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 321ZGB and 321ZJ to 321ZN inclusive. I can cut the debate on these amendments very substantially because I referred to the matters in some detail when discussing Amendment No. 321ZBC. I then argued that the detailed monitoring of water quality should be the responsibility of the Director General of Water Services rather than the Secretary of State. These amendments would work in a similar way because under Amendment No. 321ZGA the Director General of Water Services would appoint persons to act on his behalf as drinking water quality assessors.
In the following amendments, the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under Clause 60 would be transferred to the director. I shall not go over the argument in detail. In reply the Minister referred to the drinking water quality inspectorate which is to be established in the Department of the Environment. I merely propose the amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more. It is not clear on the face of the Bill what the staffing will be and what resources will be available to them. In particular—and perhaps this is the most important point—it is not clear how they will be able to act in all the local areas where the assessment of drinking water quality ought to be carried out.
If the Minister can help with more information it would enable me first to withdraw the amendment and secondly to consider what action ought to be taken at a later stage in the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, put it so succinctly, a large part of the argument on this subject was deployed earlier today. The responsibility for making and enforcing the drinking water quality regulations will rest with the Secretary of State. As I pointed out then—I shall not replay the argument I made—one of the grounds on which we feel that this is important, among others, is that of public health. We believe that, because there is no basis for giving the director general responsibility for the technical assessors whose job it will be to assess compliance with the regulations.
1356
We believe that the director general is essentially responsible for economic regulation. To give him this power would constitute a major expansion of his role in the area of quality regulation. This would be a recipe for confusion between the roles of the director general and the the Secretary of State and that is why we urge resistance to the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Even though we are not seeking to replay an earlier discussion, I could have wished that the Minister had responded to my suggestion that he might explain how these assessors—this inspectorate—would actually operate on the ground. Will they be based in Marsham Street and sally forth each morning to Northumberland or Cornwall? Will they be located in the regions where the inspectorial work has to be carried out? Is the Minister able to give us any guidance as to how this extraordinary piece of democratic centralism is to work on the ground?
Lord Hesketh: I hope that with the flexibility which we anticipate for it centralism is the very last thought that would be on the inspectorate's mind. At the moment we are giving the matter our closest consideration. The inspectorate's duties will be onerous. I can assure Members of the Committee that the necessary resources, which I suspect are the key to this, will be made available for it. I think it is fair to say that there is no question of a small team sallying forth in bowler hats from Marsham Street on a daily basis. I suspect that the members of the team will be distributed around the country, although of course reporting back to Marsham Street.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clear that I shall not get a straight answer from the Government on the matter. I must reserve my right to come back to this important and erroneous provision in the Bill at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 321ZGB not moved.]
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 321ZH:
Page 69, line 19, at end insert—
"(1) No person appointed by the Secretary of State under this section shall be employed directly or indirectly by a water undertaker.").
The noble Lord said: We are taking the position of the assessors of the enforcement of water quality a little further under the amendment. We wish to put in a clause which would stop a practice which we fear could turn into an abuse. Perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure us when he replies. The amendment is designed to prevent water undertakers from becoming assessors for other undertakers and, furthermore, to prevent their employees, or those for whom they contract services, also becoming such assessors.
The difficulty in allowing water undertakers to monitor each other's performance is not just in trade secrets or impossible competition, but rather in the, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", type of regime which we know can develop, with everybody

1357
playing the game not being too hard on each other. Ideally, assessors should be appointed from independent organisations such as the Water Research Centre, or from the science departments of universities and polytechnics. I hope that some reassurance may come from the Minister on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from appointing as a technical assessor anyone employed directly or indirectly by a water undertaker. The technical assessors to be appointed under Clause 60 will form the new drinking water inspectorate to be established shortly. This inspectorate will be responsible for carrying out a technical audit of the undertaker's records and practices on assessing and safeguarding drinking water quality. They will check to make quite sure that a water undertaker is complying with the various obligations placed on it concerning the quality of its own water supplies. Compliance with the quality standards and action taken when there is a breach of a standard will certainly be investigated. Sampling arrangements and analytical methods will also be checked, as will the information made available to the public. I hope the Committee will agree with me that it would be completely unacceptable to appoint as a technical assessor anyone employed by a water undertaker. I can give an unqualified assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, that we have no intention of doing so.
It will almost certainly be necessary to appoint full-time inspectors to undertake the investigations proposed. But, there may be some tasks, particularly when this new system for controlling drinking water quality is being set up and established, for which consultants will probably be needed. We will of course choose properly qualified people and this may well involve large consulting firms which carry out many consultancies at the same time, some of them almost certainly for water undertakers. The proposed amendment would prevent us from employing any such consultants. This would severely limit our choice, and quite unnecessarily so. It is common practice for large firms of consultants to have contracts with a number of clients, which in no way prejudices work for any of them. However, I can assure the Committee that no consultant will be engaged on terms which would permit him to undertake work where there was a possible conflict of interest. I hope with those assurances the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I find that a very reassuring response. I do not wish to cast any slight on the ability and professional knowledge of the many water consultancy firms in this country whose work is of a very high standard indeed. I am only too well aware of that fact. I am grateful for that response. It is reassuring, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 321ZJ to 321ZN not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Offences of contaminating, wasting and misusing water etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321A:
Page 70, line 33, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness I wish to move Amendment No. 321A and also speak to Amendment No, 321B. Part of Clause 61 covers instances where water supplied to one person is supplied to or taken by another person without the undertaker's consent. This particular aspect has caused considerable concern because of the implications it has for people who act in good faith and provide water for a neighbour who has had his supply disconnected for non-payment of charges. As the clause stands, in these circumstances the kindhearted neighbour would be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. We consider this to be unreasonable. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 321A and 321B have the effect of removing this provision from the clause. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, chided me when we referred to this matter earlier on this afternoon. He chided me for not having added my name to this amendment as I had complained about the effect of the subsection as it stood. I accept the rebuke. I must confess that I misread the amendment. As the rubric of the clause refers to contaminated water, I thought the amendment referred to contaminated water and not to the misuse of water. I think this is a good and realistic amendment, and in effect it relieves the abuse to which I referred earlier on. As the noble Earl said, such abuse would be intolerable. I am grateful to the Government for bringing forward this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321B:
Page 71, line 1, leave out ("(2) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Regulations for preventing contamination, waste etc. and with respect to water fittings]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321C:
Page 71, line 17, leave out second ("that") and insert ("which is in any pipe connected with any such main or other pipe or which").
The noble Earl said. On behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move Amendment No. 321C and speak to Amendment No. 321D. This clause empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the prevention of contamination and waste of water. Amendments Nos. 321C and 321D are technical amendments to make it clear that the regulations are able to provide for the prevention of contamination and waste of water in all pipes for which a consumer is responsible, whether they lie outside or inside the consumer's premises. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the face of it these seem very reasonable amendments, and I am sure we shall want to support them. However, I wish to ask the noble Earl whether, with new regulations starting to apply to water mains inside or outside houses, there is any risk of any cost or inconvenience falling upon consumers. This is an extension, and it would be helpful to have an idea of what risks may exist.
The Earl of Arran: I am not absolutely certain as to the answer to the particular question that the noble Lord raises. I believe the noble Lord to be correct on this. However, if I am incorrect I shall of course advise the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 321D:
Page 71, line 22, after ("been") insert ("or is to be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 322:
Page 71, line 36, after first ("or") insert ("quality of").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is not necessary. Therefore, I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 322 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 322ZA:
Page 71, line 40, after ("to") insert ("the registration of plumbers").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 322ZA and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 322ZB. The purpose of these amendments is to seek the sympathy and, I hope, the support of the Government in introducing what I consider to be a quite essential element into water quality, certainly in general but in particular in the domestic sphere.
I remind the Committee that Clause 62 mentions making provision for:
"such water fittings as may be prescribed".
Clause 62(2)(c) states that provision must be made for:
"such other requirements as may be prescribed with respect to the installation, arrangement, connection, testing, disconnection, alteration and repair of the fittings and with respect to the materials used in their manufacture".
Although this Government have a great fetish for deregulating and, in effect, managing and regulating matters as little as possible, I beg them to consider the importance of qualified plumbers in looking after waterworks, pipes, connections and other matters. Sadly, many people call themselves plumbers when they are not trained as plumbers. They are not qualified to call themselves plumbers. Anyone can call himself a plumber and get on with the job. I shall plumb the depths of this argument before we have finished—that is what you call a plumb line! A great deal of damage is caused by the cowboy operator, to use that immortal phrase. The term applies not only to the building trades but to anyone who passes himself off as qualified and trained in a particular trade. The public can be gullible.
I am asking the Government to accept that it should be laid down in statute that registered plumbers should be the people to carry out the functions referred to in this clause. The Government will have to make a case as to why they are disinclined to lay that down in statute. They may have a very good answer. I hope that it is not that things are going well without registration, because most Members of the Committee must know of some shoddy work, which is likely to have been carried out by unqualified or unregistered plumbers.
I have been advised in this matter by the Institute of Plumbing. Of course the institute has a vested interest, but I believe that it has a very good case. The Institute of Plumbing provides a forum for the registration, training and education of men and women who wish to become proficient in the trade and become qualified plumbers. It has a number of objectives: first, to enable the public to identify plumbers who have given evidence of their competence and who undertake to act responsibly; secondly, to promote the better training of plumbers; thirdly, to maintain a high standard of craftsmanship; fourthly, to raise the efficiency and status of plumbers. I am told that since the institute's register was started some years ago more than 60,000 plumbers have been registered as satisfying its standards. I am not competent to judge the basis of their qualifications, but there are over 11,000 plumbers registered with the institute today.
I remind the Committee of the incidence of back-siphonage, which is a consequence of bad plumbing due often to ignorance or incompetence of installers. I have a copy of a report of the DoE committee on back-siphonage in water installation which quotes statistics indicating that 61 per cent. of 1,300 installations surveyed contravened specific requirements relating to back-siphonage.
I believe that there is a case for examining sympathetically the protection of the consumer and also of the undertakers. Sad to say, apprenticeships, which hitherto have been a feature of our commercial and industrial life, have gone by the board. Small builders—and I am thinking particularly of members of the Federation of Master Builders—pay a very heavy price to ensure that they are qualified to carry out competent building work. I think that I have said sufficient to persuade the Minister that there is a very strong case for considering amending the Bill to ensure that the work which is specified should be carried out is carried out by registered plumbers. If the Minister tells me that this is not the appropriate avenue but that there are other ways of encouraging the public to use qualified and registered plumbers, I shall be very pleased to listen to him. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Although I accept that one should always use a registered plumber to carry out work inside a house, we are also dealing with undertakers' works outside a building. With regard to work outside a building, such as laying new pipes, new developments in that field and the new materials being used today require different types of engineering and completely different equipment. Therefore, although I am very much in favour of

1361
registered plumbers being employed for work inside a house I should be wary of requiring that they be used, particularly so far as concerns the work to be carried out by water undertakers.
I ask my noble friend to distinguish between the two sides of a building. Inside a house, for example, one uses hard-drawn copper which comes in straight lengths, usually with soldered fittings. Outside a house underground copper is soft drawn. It comes in coils and uses completely different types of fittings.
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested that the Government should consider this issue particularly carefully. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have considered the issue extremely carefully. These amendments seek to introduce a system of statutory registration of plumbers. As the noble Lord knows very well, this issue has been raised on a number of occasions previously.
It is argued that compulsory registration will lead to better protection for the public and that conversely the lack of it could have serious implications for public health and safety. Our position has been that, wherever possible, standards should be developed and maintained through self-regulation rather than through mandatory requirements which tend to restrict trade. We cannot see that privatisation will affect this position. Nor do we think that the overall accident record of the industry indicates that there are overriding health and safety considerations which would support the case for registration. Health and safety standards are maintained through building regulations and water bylaws.
I have to say that we are not persuaded that the arguments now being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, justify taking a different line on this occasion. I hope that the noble Lord will accept our position and agree not to pursue these amendments.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am disappointed with what the Minister has said. As he indicated, the arguments that I have deployed have been rehearsed before. With no disrespect to him, the response is a matter of record too. The Minister's argument rests on two points—an abhorrence of a restriction of trade and a belief in self-regulation. Self-regulation is another phrase for allowing either a body or individuals not to be regulated. There is little evidence that, when one leaves a body to self-regulation, it experiences either the discipline or the penalties and consequences of it. There needs to be a spur to action by the Government.
What action are we asking for here? We are simply asking the Government to say that, when plumbing work needs to be done, it should be done by qualified people. The line that we take—that qualification will come by registration with the Institute of Plumbing—may well be the wrong one, but I am saddened to learn——
Lord Trafford: The noble Lord talks about self-regulation being a bad means of carrying out things and that it is an open sesame to cowboys. However, was he present at Question Time when
1362
the lawyers pressed the case for self-regulation of the profession? Perhaps he has heard my own profession also press strongly for self-regulation. I do not believe that self-regulation is necessarily an argument that one should throw out of the window, whether it applies to plumbers, lawyers, doctors or anyone else. The noble Lord is on dangerous ground there.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall need to consult my lawyer first; perhaps I may have to see a doctor too. The last thing that I should want to say——
Lord Trafford: The noble Lord is saying just that. He says that he needs to consult his lawyer before he brings in his plumber in case the latter is not properly registered. Is not the matter becoming a little farcical?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord chooses to make the matter farcical, but the Minister and I are in a majority over his view in that we take this matter very seriously. The Minister has deployed the argument that the route that I have suggested—namely, registration, which would imply some form of discipline within the register—is not acceptable. I do not refer to self-regulation per se.The noble Lord put words in my mouth when he referred to cowboys. I did not say that all bodies that are self-regulated are cowboys, but my experience is that many bodies would prefer to be self-regulated because they fear the discipline and strictures that some form of government imposition might bring.
We have had a good run on this issue. I have raised what I think is a very sensible argument and I am disappointed that the Minister has not been prepared to accept it. However, there will be other opportunities to persuade people, if not the Minister and if not in respect of this Bill. This is a peg upon which I have been waiting to hang this argument. I believe that the argument is appropriate, although it has not been accepted. We shall try at some other time with what I still consider to be a very sensible argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 322ZB not moved.]
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Power to prevent damage and to take steps to prevent contamination, waste etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 322A to 322C:
Page 73, line 23, leave out (", or in any pipe connected with any such main or pipe,").
Page 73, line 27, leave out second ("that") and insert ("which is in any pipe connected with any such main or other pipe or which").
Page 73, line 30, after ("water") insert ("which has been or is to be").
The noble Earl said: Clause 63 provides a water undertaker with powers to act in cases where it has reason to believe that damage or contamination is being caused or water is being wasted, misused or unduly consumed. Amendments Nos. 322A, 322B and 322C are technical amendments to make it clear

1363
that the powers are to apply in respect of all pipes for which a consumer is responsible, whether they lie inside or outside the consumer's premises. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 65 [Standards of wholesomeness]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 322CA:
Page 75, line 44, after ("regulations") insert ("and with the approval of the Director").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Clause 65 deals with standards of wholesomeness. The first part of the clause reads:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that water that is supplied to any premises is or is not to be regarded as wholesome for the purposes of this Chapter if it satisfies or, as the case may be, fails to satisfy such requirements as may be prescribed."
Amendment No. 322CA would amend that subsection to read:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations and with the approval of the Director make provision".
I think that we have already demonstrated the differing opinions in the setting and interpretation of standards and in particular the conflicting views between the Government and the European Commission. An investigation into the track record of enforcement of drinking water standards in this country would show a history of relaxed interpretations, derogations from and disregard of standards, in particular as referred to in the document 80/778/EEC.
As the Bill stands the Secretary of State not only prescribes the standards of water quality by means of regulations but he is also responsible for the appointment of technical assessors and for deciding when it is appropriate to take enforcement action. There is no reason why the sole responsibility to prescribe standards of wholesomeness should lie with the Secretary of State. We consider that it would be more appropriate in the circumstances to separate the responsibilities for making and enforcement of regulations between the Secretary of State and the director general.
Our amendment enables a useful input to be made by the director general and allows his expertise and knowledge of the new regulatory framework to be used to the full. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: We have been round this track a number of times today in some ways. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of the director general before making provision by regulations for standards of wholesomeness.
In the light of our previous discussions about the role of the director general, we believe that the amendment is something of an anomaly. However,
1364
it would make the director general rather than the Secretary of State the ultimate arbiter in this country on standards of wholesomeness. I remind the Committee of the arguments that I displayed earlier today; namely, that in view of the major public health and Community law aspects of this measure, we believe that that would not be acceptable. It is for that reason, as I said earlier today, that I urge the Committee to resist this amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord does not disappoint me. He is quite right. This is another bite at the same cherry. We still hold the view that there is no challenge to the ultimate responsibility and superiority of decision-making of the Secretary of State in these matters. We simply believe that the Secretary of State cannot possibly be technically as competent as the director. I hope that the director will be a person who will demonstrate not only that he understands the water industry but that he has a feel for the thousand and one things that are required to make a manager into a good manager. The Secretary of State is primarily a politician and after serving in one department he may very well serve a stint in another and so on. He cannot possibly be as closely in touch with the water industry as is the director.
However, the noble Lord is fair when he says that we have already dealt substantially with the argument here. We think that the attitude of the Government downgrades the importance of the director general and the qualities that he brings to the post and therefore his ability to impress himself on the water industry and the world in general.
We believe that this amendment is certainly merited. However, there is no point in my pressing it further now and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 322CB and 322D not moved.]
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [General sewerage functions.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 322E:
Page 77, line 15, after ("drained") insert—

("(b) to establish, within one year of its appointment, the number of communities with a population of more than one hundred inhabitants, not connected up to the system of public sewers, and, in consultation with the local authorities within whose boundaries these communities lie, to produce plans for the extension of the system of public sewers to these communities; and to indicate the order of priority in which these plans should be implemented;

(c) to ensure that, in every year until the programme of first-time sewerage schemes referred to in (new b) above is completed. The capital programme of the sewerage undertaker includes provision for the carrying out of one-twentieth, by value, of this programme.")

The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to this amendment on the Marshalled List. The aim of the amendment is to make sure that there is greater and more thoroughgoing sewage mains connection in rural areas. Section 14 of the Water Act 1973 places a duty on water authorities to provide adequate sewerage services within their areas.
District councils have long been concerned by the fact that water authorities throughout the last two decades have been more and more reluctant to provide schemes of first-time sewerage for communities in rural areas, thus putting them on to the public sewerage system. Water authorities were able to hide from the requisitioning power by means of Section 16 of the same Act which gave local authorities the power to compel the water authorities to place the local communities on bills but at the same time it meant that they had to pay for the actual service.
Due to lack of funding the net result was that very little work was done. The aim of the amendment is to make it a duty of the new water companies to place all communities of over 100 dwellings on the public sewerage system. It also provides a timescale over which this has to be done. In other words, within a year one has to have a timescale for all these communities to be put on to the main sewerage system. There is then a 20-year period in which the work has to be completed. The amendment also provides a scale of funding over the period.
I suggest that this is not a completely unreasonable amendment. There is no real reason why the task could not be completed within a given period. Indeed, in the 20-year period I would hope that the new water companies—if they are more efficient due to the benefits of privatisation—should be able to carry out this work. I can therefore see no reason why the amendment should not be given very serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The effect of this amendment is to add to general sewerage duty in Clause 67 a specific duty for sewerage undertakers to provide mains drainage for all communities with more than one hundred inhabitants. Undertakers would be required to draw up plans for each community in consultation with the local authority concerned and to implement each year one-twentieth, by value, of the resulting programme of schemes.
In so far as the amendment is directed to securing suitable and necessary provision of first-time public sewerage to existing properties, this is an objective that we all share. But I hope to be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the amendment is unnecessary and that the Bill as it stands offers a better approach.
Clause 67 preserves the general sewerage duty which water authorities have at the moment and spells it out in more detail. It places a duty on every sewerage undertaker to provide, improve and extend a system of public sewers so as to ensure that its area is and continues to be effectually drained. In fulfilling this duty undertakers will be expected to plan and to carry out a continuous programme of works to maintain, improve and extend their network of sewers.
This does not mean that mains sewerage has to be provided everywhere. Private sewerage arrangements which operate satisfactorily are an effective means of drainage. As long as they are suitable for a particular locality, they may be considered to provide for that part of an undertaker's
1366
area to be effectually drained. Local authorities, with their public health responsibilities, have the power to ensure that owners of private systems maintain them properly. In other localities the circumstances will be such that only mains drainage can provide a satisfactory solution. It is likely therefore that each undertaker's programme of works will include plans for extending its system of public sewers at some stage to localities within its area where there are private arrangements.
We are also preserving in the Bill the present arrangements under which new sewers can be requisitioned. Clause 70 gives local authorities and the owners and occupiers of properties the right to require a sewerage undertaker to provide mains drainage. The requisitioner has to pay annually over a period of 12 years any difference between the charges for the use of the sewer and the cost incurred by the undertaker in providing the sewer. Rural sewerage grant will continue to be available to reduce the cost which would otherwise fall on the requisitioner.
The purpose of the requisitioning arrangements is to offer a means of securing that a particular locality is provided with a public sewer in advance of the time that the undertaker might be expected to extend its system to the locality under its general duty. A local authority has the option of requisitioning if it believes that earlier provision of a public sewer would be of benefit to its area. The owners or occupiers of premises with private sewerage arrangements will also, under the provisions of the Bill, be able to requisition a sewer, either individually or as a group, or to join in requisitioning with the local authority for the area.
The amendment seeks to establish a population criterion for the provision of mains drainage. We believe that this is not practicable. Quite apart from the problem of defining what is meant by a community, any general criterion is bound to be arbitrary in its effect and result in undertakers having to provide first-time sewerage where private arrangements are entirely suitable. Decisions on whether mains drainage is necessary must be taken locality by locality in the light of all the circumstances. Undertakers will, of course, need to liaise with the local authorities in their area in planning their forward programmes of work.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the general duty on sewerage undertakers and the requisitioning arrangements, taken together with the public health responsibilities and powers of local authorities, constitute an effective statutory framework for ensuring that mains drainage is provided where and when it is needed. I trust therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I seek to intervene because although the Minister made a fairly comprehensive reply which seemed to suggest that all the necessary legislation to deal with these problems was in place, I do not believe that it is for one minute. That may be the fault of local authorities. It may be the fault of water authorities. I am not sure who to place the blame on. It may even be the fault of the National

1367
Housebuilding Registration Council. I can give an example of an estate developed in the past 10 years in my former constituency where between 200 and 300 people live. A private sewerage system was put in to an approved standard; but because the builders refused to spend £1,000 to have the system tested—which is what the water authority insisted on through the local authority as its agent—those people are still on a private sewer. All kinds of things have happened since because of a collapse of foundation work on which some of these properties have been built. I brought the National Housebuilding Registration Council in because I felt it had some responsibility. Fair enough, it offered to put in £2,000 to be spent on repairs. But to get all those people together to try to have that money contributed is, as I am sure everybody knows, extremely difficult.
It seems to me to be absolutely outrageous that private developers, who make a lot of money out of an estate, can refuse to spend £ 1,000 so that a sewer can be taken over by the authority. I suspect that kind of problem will continue. One of the objectives of this amendment would have been to stop that happening. Although a whole plethora of remedies has been mentioned by the Minister—and I do not expect him to answer my question—it is sickening that it is still happening on new estates at this time. Builders are still making the same mistake. I hope that the Bill will give some strength to local or water authorities to ensure that that cannot happen again, and that developers are obliged to finish a job off properly so that the private sewerage systems that are put in in the first place can be adopted.
Lord Hesketh: I believe that we come to an amendment later on this subject and into which we can go in more detail.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord's answer was full and listed many regulations and bodies which are dealing with the problem. But the great number of them probably points to one of the problems here. There are many bodies and much permissive legislation. There are a great many people trying to deal with the problem. The aim of the amendment was to try to give some cohesion and base to it, to bring all the relevant people together and to give some kind of plan and structure to it.
I do not propose to divide the Committee on this amendment, certainly not at this short a notice. But in withdrawing the amendment, I reserve the right to come back at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 323:
Page 77, line 20, at end insert ("; and

(c) without prejudice to the generality of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, to make reasonable provision for the reception and disposal of such trade effluent arising in its area as it is appropriate to dispose of through the public sewers.").

The noble Earl said: Like the previous amendment, this I hope is designed to produce a
1368
little more definition into the most wonderful, airy, nebulous Clause 67. I was going to read it to the Committee, but fortunately in his first answer to the previous amendment the Minister did so and we were able to hear how vague it is.
I mentioned my concern over this matter in the Second Reading debate when I drew the attention of this Chamber to the possible problems relating to industrial effluent. The amendment is designed to ensure that the reception and disposal of trade effluent via the sewers is recognised as a fundamental obligation of the sewage undertaker.
One may cast one's mind back. I am not suggesting that any Member of the Committee was present on that occasion. However, in the early days of the railway companies they came before Parliament and applied for Private Bills to enable them to establish their networks. They were given all kinds of privileges. In its wisdom Parliament said, "If you are going to have all these privileges you are going to accept the obligation to be a common carrier. In other words, provided that it will go through the tunnel on the route it does not matter what it is; you, the railway company, must carry it. You cannot say that you do not like carrying cows and that you will only carry coal". They were common carriers. I suggest that that obligation exists for the companies which will take over the sewerage system.
At present the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 confers on industry those rights, subject to certain reasonable conditions. which are similar to those for the discharge of domestic effluents and surface water run-off. The majority of trade effluent dischargers have no other economic route of disposal. If you are running a factory which uses a certain amount of water, perhaps for dyeing textiles, and you are in the middle of a town, you must dispose of the effluent down the sewer; there is nothing else for it. You do not have any other economic route if you cannot do that. Further, I suggest that the burden of proof must remain with the sewerage undertaker. He must prove that he cannot reasonably be expected to receive and treat that particular trade effluent.
There are nearly 30,000 consents at present covering discharge to sewer from industry. The water industry's income from trade effluent charges in 1987–88 was over £100 million. For all industrial dischargers it is imperative that the Bill protects their rights to connect and discharge their effluents to sewer. Obviously that is subject to any appropriate control conditions necessary to protect the sewer, the treatment facility, the workforce and the general environment.
The new water supply plcs should not be allowed to pick and choose what they believe to be the most profitable trade effluent for them to treat. It must be remembered that they will be the new privatised companies. They have the profit motive before them and they may say, "We wish to take this particular trade effluent. We can make more profit out of it. We shall say to the other chaps, 'Sorry, we cannot deal with yours; you go and find somewhere else to put it'.".
That is where the common carrier principle must come in. The companies will be accepting all the

1369
assets, such as the sewerage network and treatment plants. I suggest that the obligation rests with those assets. I hardly think that the Department of Trade and Industry would be happy with a takeover bid if the company taking over said, "Yes, we will accept all their assets but, sorry, we are not interested in their liabilities". The same situation arises here. It may be, as I hope, that the Minister will be able to convince the Committee that my fears are groundless and that the obligation on sewerage undertakers will still exist under the Bill; but, please, not by quoting Clause 67(l)(a), because it is to vague too be true. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 323 would add to the general duties of sewerage undertakers set out in subsection (1) of Clause 67 a further duty to make reasonable provision for the reception and disposal of such trade effluents, arising in the area covered by their appointments, as it is appropriate to dispose of through public sewers. This further duty would be without prejudice to the generality of the duties in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).
Legislation governing the discharge of trade effluents into public sewers is set out in the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937, as amended by later legislation, and supplemented in particular by provisions in the Public Health Act 1961 and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The framework provided in those Acts is further modified by Clauses 69 and 73 and Schedules 8 and 9 of the Bill.
The cornerstone of these provisions is the prohibition on discharge of trade effluents into public sewers without consent. The refusal of consent or the imposition of conditions of consent have always been matters against which the potential discharger could appeal. In the past such appeals have been decided by the Secretary of State. In future, as a result of the changes made by Schedule 8, appeals would lie to the director general subject to one exception: in the case of trade effluents to which Clause 73 and Schedule 9 apply, requirements as to the authorisation of the discharge of prescribed substances will be determined by the Secretary of State, and not be subject to further appeal.
The existence of specific right of appeal, the need for which has not been challenged, has the effect of establishing that the sewerage undertaker has an obligation to accept a discharge of trade effluent in all reasonable circumstances; otherwise, the undertaker's refusal will simply be overturned on appeal. However, as regards the planning provision of capacity to meet trade effluent demand the general duties in Clause 67 are not, I accept, completely clear. I therefore have some sympathy with the ideas behind the amendment. If the noble Earl is willing to withdraw his amendment I would therefore be willing to undertake to consider whether the relationship could helpfully be clarified.
The Earl of Shannon: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. I shall have to read again in the Official Report all the various references which he gave because I could not quite pick them up at the rate he so efficiently gave them. However, in view
1370
of his undertaking and his kind offer to consider matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 322A:
Page 77, line 20, at end insert ("and

(c) where disposals are by means of sea outfall, to ensure that the outlet shall be a distance of not less than 2 kilometres from the nearest land, or greater if necessary in order to take account of the effects of tides, or of detergents in the sewage.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to try to discover what steps the Government intend to take to improve sewage disposal into the sea. Of course, I noted the reply of my noble friend Lord Caithness to a parliamentary Question on 8th May that this Bill will be "of immense benefit". I hope that my noble friend can give me some idea of the Government's thoughts on what "immense benefit" will be brought by this Bill and more importantly, where those thoughts are contained in the Bill. I am not happy with the powers under subsection (1) of this clause as they are not sufficient.
I have the privilege to live in Anglesey. Since the mid-1970s I have had a running battle with Welsh Water over the disgraceful state of some, if not most Anglesey beaches due to the discharge of sewage into the sea. I must say that Welsh Water was particularly unhelpful in the early stages of my battle. Many of the replies I received were worthy of Sir Humphrey in "Yes Minister". I suppose that my noble friend will say, "all the better to be privatised", but that is what I want to know.
Members of the Committee may have noted that since I tabled this amendment, the Department of the Environment has announced that it intends to commission a study as it is thought that the present system of sewage disposal into the sea, based on the Royal Commission environment report of 1984, is out of date, particularly as regards the length and effectiveness of long sea outfalls.
My amendment insists on a long sea outfall to take account of the tide and the amount of detergent contained in the effluent. That would prevent, for example, outfalls into the Menai Strait which Welsh Water assures me is all right because the material is shredded. However, as most Members of the Committee know, the Menai Strait is in no place wider than about half a mile. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me why it is more pleasant or indeed healthy to swim through shredded faeces rather than unshredded faeces. I am sorry to have to say that I have swum through both in Anglesey, and on balance I think I prefer the latter—though perhaps I should add that this has usually been because I have been unwillingly thrown out of a sailing boat.
Depending on my noble friend's answers, I should prefer to see all sea sewage properly treated rather than just shredded. That would remove the sludge, which is the worry. I hope my noble friend will agree, but if he states that it is financially impractical in the near future perhaps the Bill can be amended at a later stage to give the Secretary of State or the NRA rather tighter instructions to improve this disgusting situation and also put a date on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I support the analysis as set out by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, I raise a question mark over the solution he gives. We all want to see the problem resolved. I presume that my noble friend is assuming that simply extending pipelines to two kilometres will somehow or other resolve the problems all round and that the pollution will not reach our beaches.
However, I should like to give an example. In some parts of the country the water is shallower at two kilometres from the coast than it is closer to the coast. At Southend I understand the outfall is 1.4 kilometres long. At Southend the sea is deeper at 1.4 kilometres than it is at two kilometres. Therefore, if the amendment had been in force the sea outfall would be longer but would discharge into shallower water. If it is discharged into shallower water the substance, shredded or unshredded, would be less dilute. Having a standard two kilometres outfall raises that technicality. The amendment would also require immediate expenditure to lengthen all outfalls to two kilometres, and such lengthening could have an adverse effect that presumably is not what my noble friend Lord Stanley wishes to see.
Schedule 2, paragraph 2(3), gives examples of the conditions that the NRA may impose on the discharge concerned. Surely it is better for the NRA to consider each application on its merits, to decide on the optimum solution and not accept the minimum length of outfall which this amendment requires. I absolutely agree with the analysis of the problem but the solution must be a technical one and appropriate to the circumstances.
Lord Ross of Newport: As someone who has for many years lived in a seaside area on an island which is a real island, unlike Anglesey, but which has the same problems I support the noble Lord's arguments. However, if we change the outfalls now, God help us all, because our water authority has recently spent a fortune extending the sewer outlets at Ryde and Sandown and on the western end of the Isle of Wight. Large amounts of money have been spent extending the outfalls further into the Solent where there are strong tides.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord refer to the Department of the Environment inquiry into sea outfalls. If that is the case I hope we shall learn more about it from the Minister when he replies. I have been assured over many years that this is the safest way to dispose of sewage, provided it is macerated. Many of my constituents may hardly agree with that, but I await the reply with interest because it is an important subject.
Lord Renton: We ought to have outgrown the era of having sea outfalls for sewage at all. It is a most appalling way of disposing of sewage even if the pipes extend a long way from the land. If we had a proper sewerage scheme for every place that still has a sea outfall that problem would no longer be necessary. But, alas, we do not yet seem to have reached that enlightened state of progress. I hope that we shall do so before many years have passed and certainly before this Government ceases to exist. I hope that that situation will not occur for many
1372
years to come. We should carry on with getting rid of these outfalls. There is great help available to all local authorities in establishing sewerage schemes if they wish to do so.
When my noble friend replies to this amendment perhaps he can tell us how many sea outfalls still remain in England and Wales. If we knew the answer to that we would know something of the size of the problem. I hope that this debate will be taken by the Government and local authorities to show that your Lordships' Committee does not take kindly to sea outfall sewerage schemes
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: What an interesting little amendment! I am sure that it could keep us here for several hours. It has all the potential of developing in every direction towards sea or land. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where they are used, sea outfalls shall discharge at a distance of not less that two kilometres from the nearest land, or greater if necessary, in order to take account of the effects of tides, or of detergents in sewage, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley drew to our attention. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that coastal areas remain unpolluted. The Government fully share this objective with my noble friend Lord Stanley, and consider that the objective would be met by the provisions of the Bill as it stands, and will not be served by adopting the amendment.
The fact is that the amendment would replace the use of criteria designed to maintain the quality of bathing and shellfish waters with an arbitrary limit which has no particular justification. Under Clause 104 of this Bill, any discharge to controlled waters without a consent from the National Rivers Authority will be illegal. Schedule 11 makes provision for the NRA to apply appropriate conditions in respect of applications for consent. I hope that that answers the question of my noble friend Lord Stanley as to where it is in the Bill. This substantially continues the present duties under the Control of Pollution Act, Part II, exercised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in relation to water authorities' discharges. In deciding whether to issue a consent to discharge, the NRA will need to be convinced that the quality objectives of the receiving waters will be met and, in the case of bathing and shellfish waters, that the standards set by relevant EC directives are satisfied. The length of long sea outfalls will be determined in each case on the basis of environmental studies including the effects of wind, tides and currents.
That is why I believe that the point raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch is very relevant. You can quite easily have a long sea outfall that goes for half a kilometre in 800 feet of water with a very stiff tide. There can be another one which goes for five kilometres and still be in only 10 feet of water. We are of course aware that there remains a number of unsatisfactory short outfalls discharging sometimes above the low water mark. But water authorities are now spending £100 million each year to replace these. I believe that the number of outfalls in the United Kingdom can be measured in thousands.

1373
Thus while we have sympathy with the proposer's underlying aims, we believe that the amendment proposed is unnecessary, and should not be accepted. It is for the NRA to satisfy itself that schemes for long sea outfalls put forward by water and sewerage undertakers, meet the needs of the receiving waters and are soundly based. Legislation to impose an arbitrary standard can be no substitute for tailor-made solutions, which are required to deal with these difficult problems and which will be provided by the sewerage undertakers in accordance with the requirements of the NRA or the Secretary of State. It is a difficult matter, but I have tried to demonstrate to my noble friend Lord Stanley that it is unnecessary for him to move this amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps he can tell me whether I entirely misheard him. I can hardly believe it, but did my noble friend say that there are still thousands of sea outfalls?
Lord Hesketh: As I am sure my noble friend Lord Renton is aware, many of them are very small indeed; they will just belong to single houses.
Lord Ross of Newport: Perhaps I may confirm that I am quite certain that if there are not thousands there are certainly hundreds of them and they concern more than just a few houses.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I should like to thank noble Lords for their support. I think that all of us, including my noble friend Lord Hesketh, are on the same side; it is just a question of how we deal with the problem. Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lady Blatch that it was a probing amendment. I put it down before I read the report in The Times about long sea outfalls, and I fully accept the point. However, in mitigation I must say I put the amendment forward bearing in mind the tides. In Anglesey, the outfalls ought to go out about 25 miles across the Channel because of our tides. However, I take the point in that connection.
So far as concerns the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport, after the debate I shall give him a cutting from The Times concerning research into the matter. As regards my noble friend Lord Renton, I must say that we often disagree. However, I could not believe my ears when he went further than I had gone. All I can say to him is that I am too timid to go that far.
I was delighted to hear that my noble friend Lord Hesketh supported the idea in principle. However, I must say that when it comes down to the nitty-gritty I am far from happy. It is really a question of where we start. Will the NRA be able to do what he says the Bill directs it to do? Will the authority, as my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, really be able to correct thousands of these outfalls? Does it have the money? I shall be most interested to hear on Monday how the Government reply to my noble friend Lord Nugent, who is asking for more money. It is a massive task which we all agree should be
1374
tackled. With that, I think I will leave the subject, and accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 324 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Standards of performance in connection with provision of sewerage services]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 324A:
Page 77, line 33, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 324A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 324B and 324E. I should like to start by taking up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He referred to the massive task facing the sewerage authorities. He talked about the specific case of long sea outfalls. However, I can assure him that the problem is very much more widespread and that the amounts of money concerned are absolutely horrific.
Over many years there have been contraventions of all acceptable standards of sewage disposal. In 1977 there was a national assessment made by the study committee on sewers and water mains which concluded that the amount of investment needed even then could be measured in billions of pounds. The record of the collapse of sewers, of the flooding of houses and other areas with raw sewage and the record of river pollution caused by sewage is an appalling one.
Members of the Committee who have been reading The Times this week will have seen a graphic series of articles by Paul Vallely about the River Avon—the Warwickshire Avon. It is clear from those articles that we have not only very heavy pollution of that river—it was not chosen as being the worst by any means; it was chosen as one which was an average river—but at the same time we have the single largest polluter of that river the water authority itself. In other words, the body responsible for seeking to improve river quality is itself the largest polluter.
The National Rivers Authority, with the abolition of integrated river basin management, is intended to deal with pollution, or is intended at least to provide the framework within which that problem can be dealt with. But it will not succeed unless the resources are made available and unless the powers are made available to the regulatory bodies to secure that the new sewerage undertakings do the work that is necessary to correct many years of neglect.
It will need a huge amount of investment. The problem is that investment in sewers for the new undertakings will not be particularly lucrative. This is not the area where they will exercise their entrepreneurial or managerial talents. This will be, as it always has been, the poor cousin of any other activities that they may have. Therefore, we seek in these three amendments to secure that the Secretary of State takes action to make the regulations which are necessary in order to get the sewerage authorities to do the work that is necessary.
Amendment No. 324A deals with the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the occasions on which contraventions of sewerage standards under the Bill are to be treated as breaches of the general duty in Clause 87. What we seek to do is to make it a duty instead of a power. Amendment No. 324B refers to the power which the Secretary of State has by regulation to prescribe standards of sewerage performance. Our amendment would make it a duty and not a power.
Amendment No. 324E deals with the situation where the sewerage undertaker fails to meet a prescribed standard and has to compensate the person affected by the failure. That could be, for example, a householder whose property has been flooded by raw sewage. The Secretary of State has discretion under the Bill as drafted to provide for the payment of such amount as may be prescribed in compensation. We are saying that it should be a duty to pay compensation, because only with that duty will there be adequate incentive for the sewerage authorities to avoid, rather than simply compensate for, the damage that results, for example, from flooding by raw sewage.
I have said that sea outfalls are a special case. They deserve the condemnation of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the well expressed concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, in many parts of the country there are sewerage authorities which are simply failing to meet the minimum standards of sewage disposal required in a civilised society. The Secretary of State should have the duty not the power to see that those standards are met following privatisation.
I am familiar with and weary of, as no doubt, the Committee is weary of, the arguments about powers and duties. But the seriousness of the problem with which we are faced and with which the sewerage authorities are faced is so great that on this occasion it would be appropriate for the Government to abandon their general principle against duties for the Secretary of State, and to show their real intention to correct the years of neglect by agreeing to these three amendments. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment. I have had experience of a water authority which discharged raw sewage on to my fields. I eventually went to court to stop it and all that it did was to put the raw sewage into its own stream. That is totally irresponsible. It backs up the case made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Water authorities must be stopped from doing that, which is why I feel that the Secretary of State should have such a power.
Lord Hesketh: Amendments Nos. 324A and 324B seek to replace the powers in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 68 with duties to make regulations. Because we have covered this ground before, I shall make my points briefly. The first power is intended as the back up to powers of the director general under conditions of appointment to monitor the performance of the sewerage undertakers. Should
1376
the director be unable through informal means to secure that the overall quality of service achieved is at a level that best reflects customers' interests he may ask the Secretary of State to specify in regulations requirements which, if breached, will amount to breaches of the undertakers' general duty under Clause 67. The Secretary of State, who will be accountable to Parliament through the making of regulations, will be able to consider whether any new obligations which the regulations would impose, and for which customers would have to pay, are appropriate. His discretion to make regulations retains that accountability.
The regulations under subsection (2) are to be made under the same procedure and will prescribe standards in day-to-day relations between the sewerage undertaker and the individual which, if not met, will entitle the persons affected to payments by the undertaker—the guaranteed standards scheme. Draft regulations are currently out for consultation and as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, acknowledged on Monday in relation to an identical amendment on Clause 38, it is clear that the Secretary of State will make those regulations. It is nevertheless right that the Secretary of State should have discretion to decide whether further regulations should be made to supplement the scheme.
Amendment No. 324E would require those regulations to prescribe the amounts to be paid where the prescribed standards are breached. The draft regulations as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows do that. I repeat that in developing the scheme in the future it would be wrong to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether any new obligations which fresh regulations would impose should be made. I made the same point on Monday on Clause 38, and for those reasons I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am puzzled by the Minister's last remark. He suggests that by replacing a power with a duty our amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations which would create new conditions and new powers. I cannot see how the amendments do that. I shall take the three in turn. First,
"the Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for contraventions of such requirements as may be prescribed to be treated for the purposes of this Act as breaches of that duty".
The Secretary of State has the ability, as the Minister has said, to extend that provision. He is basing it on the director general's activities when acting as regulator. Nothing in my amendment stops the Secretary of State extending the scope of the regulations.
By the second amendment, "The Secretary of State" we say, "shall" and then
"by regulations prescribe such standards of performance in connection with the provision of sewerage services as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved in individual cases".
Saying that the Secretary of State "shall" do it now does not mean that he may not do more in the future. The third example is "such regulations may" and we say "shall" and then
"provide that… a sewerage undertaker… shall pay such amount as may be prescribed";

1377
in other words, compensation. Again, compensation regulations can be added to within the scope of the subsection, amended as we propose.
Will the Minister tell us why he suggests that our amendments prevent the Secretary of State making improvements to his regulations later? I do not see that point in the text.
To give the Minister an opportunity to reply, perhaps I may make the more fundamental point which lies behind the amendments; that the proposed draft regulations may well be acceptable, as the Minister suggested. I am aware of the draft regulations, their virtues and some of their drawbacks. The point that we are trying to make is that all Secretaries of State, not just this Secretary of State, must have a continuing duty to secure that the regulations exist, that they are adequate and that they meet changing conditions. Anything less than that simply will not satisfy those who are aware of the defects of our sewerage system.
I find it astonishing that the Government collectively—I am not talking about the Minister here tonight—should be so politically naive as to risk electoral unpopularity by failing to take adequate measures to secure that our sewerage system is brought, at a deliberate but not dilatory pace, up to the standards that we require at the end of the 20th century. I am happy to give the Minister an opportunity to explain why he thinks my amendments impose any limitation on the Secretary of State.
Lord Hesketh: I think that there may be an error in that remark. It is important that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh wishes the Secretary of State to make regulations. I believe that that is quite an important point, because there is a parallel here. I remind the noble Lord that on Monday we made it clear that we foresaw this happening. He wishes to ensure that this is on the face of the Bill, but on Monday we decided that we would agree to differ on the principle of achieving the same aim. That is what I was trying to explain just now, in an inadequate way, for which I apologise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that my amendments do not involve any limitation on the Secretary of State. I believe that my two fundamental points are still valid, indeed the more so from the Minister's retraction of his earlier remarks. The first point is that there must be a continuing duty on all Secretaries of State. That would not be achieved by the "may" formula which is in the Bill at present. The second is that it seems to me that it is political suicide for the Government to neglect the widespread and justified concern that exists over the state of our sewers. They should not neglect an opportunity to put things right which exists and would exist and be strengthened by the acceptance of our amendments.
It is only the time of night and the thinness of the Committee that prevents me putting the matter to a vote now. I can assure the Government that it will take a high priority at a later stage of the Bill and I am convinced that noble Lords on all sides of the
1378
Committee will wish to have an opportunity to improve the standards of our sewerage services. They will not be satisfied that the Bill as drafted is adequate for that purpose. Without in any way having withdrawn the arguments for my amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 324A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 324B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 324C:
Page 77, line 36, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, before the sale of shares in any undertaker").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments No. 324D and 324F. I do not need to go over the ground about the inadequacies of our present sewerage arrangements. That has been adequately dealt with both by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and in the discussion on the previous amendment.
The Government accept that there will have to be asset management plans; in other words plans which will reveal the degree to which the assets of the sewerage undertakings—basically the sewers—will have to be managed and improved in the period following privatisation. It would not do much good if they did not agree because under the law—the Financial Services Act—the prospectus which will have to be issued for privatisation will have to include such asset management plans. It is already clear that work on these asset management plans is progressing.
We are saying with these amendments that detailed asset management plans ought to be produced before the sale of shares of any undertakers. It ought not to be left to the Financial Services Act to secure that, but we ought to secure it in this Water Bill. That is why Amendment No. 324C states that the plans have to be produced,
"before the sale of shares in any undertaker".
Amendment No. 324D states that the plans must be detailed. Clearly plans of a high degree of generality will neither satisfy prospective shareholders nor the customers of the sewerage undertakings. Amendment No. 324F refers to the publication of regulations and the publication of,
"detailed plans for the management of the assets in the area of each individual undertaker … to secure the proper carrying out of its functions in relation to the standards of performance prescribed under this section".
If one takes away the language of legislation one sees that the amendment seeks to ascertain how the sewerage undertakings will invest in order to bring their sewers up to the required standards. By any standards, or by any measurement, there is a huge amount to be done. Within the Thames Water area some 13,000 homes are frequently flooded with raw sewage. In Greater Manchester, the number of sewage incidents reported every year is 36,000. There is no assurance whatsoever in any of this legislation that the necessary investment will be undertaken.
I realise it is difficult in such a complex business as sewerage to establish what the standards of

1379
performance ought to be in order to establish what investment is necessary to enable the assets to be used to bring sewerage undertakings up to standard. However, I can suggest a way that may be undertaken. Items which should be included are: flood protection from both foul and surface water; the structural condition of the sewers; river water quality; the safety of the system; the standard of maintenance of the system; and the efficiency of the system. We can envisage how standards ought to be maintained and how target standards could be established. If we consider flooding as a result of storms for example, we could provide that all properties should be protected against foul flooding in storms of a frequency of less than one in 10 years. That refers to the degree of severity of the storms. However, that does not happen at the moment.
Under Welsh Water at the moment, capital can be spent if there is a risk of flooding from storms of a frequency of one in 50 years. However, under Severn Trent capital can be spent if there is a risk of flooding as a result of storms with a frequency of once in one year. This degree of variation between one water undertaking and another is simply unacceptable. There ought to be definitions of levels of service and definitions of targets, so that by 1995, for example, the number of properties failing to meet the standards, and therefore affected by flooding, would be reduced to half of 1 per cent. There should be a trigger whereby, when conditions reach so bad a level, immediate remedial action is taken. There should also be levels of upgrading.
All of those provisions are perfectly proper, normal and standard business decisions. They are decisions that a private business should be taking if it is going to exercise its responsibilities adequately. At the moment adequate assurance has not been given that the Government appreciate the need after privatisation to regulate the sewerage business in the same way as the drinking water business will have to be regulated. There is so much to be done. However, the Government do not appreciate the need for proper business planning in the sewerage area to secure that what needs to be done is done.
This, again, is matter of the utmost seriousness. It may not be a matter which gains the headlines, but for those who are affected by it it is of very great importance. The privatisation proposals and this Bill will be desperately flawed unless something more is done than is proposed here. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 324C would require the regulations under subsection (2) to be made before the sale of shares in any undertaker. Amendment No. 324D would require the same regulations to prescribe detailed standards. Amendment No.324F would insert a new subsection (2A) in Clause 68 requiring the publication of any regulations under subsection (2) to be accompanied by such plans for the management of the undertakers' assets as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with standards of performance prescribed under this clause.
1380
It is important that the Secretary of State should have discretion to add to the guaranteed standards scheme in order that it can be expanded as appropriate. Although we intend that the scheme should be in place before flotation, we wish to retain the Secretary of State's discretion to add to it afterwards. We have yet to be accused that the standards in the guaranteed standards scheme are expressed too generally. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to prescribe for over-regulation in day-to-day commercial practice, which might be the implication of Amendment No. 324D.
Condition K of the model instrument of appointment requires the sewerage undertaker to adopt a system of underground asset management plans which can be independently assessed and reported on to the Director General of Water Services. We do not believe that the task of the director should be to second-guess management. The existence of underground asset management plans will nevertheless provide an important safeguard against neglect of underground asset networks, where time-scales for investment are long and the impact on quality of service is gradual. Elsewhere we believe that the specific safeguards we have provided about the quality of service and quality of environmental performance form the right framework within which it can remain the companies' responsibility to manage their businesses. Regulations under Clause 68 do not need to be accompanied by detailed plans. Indeed, it is the consequences of failure to plan on some specific aspect which might lead to further regulations being made under subsection (2).
For those reasons, we believe that these amendments should be resisted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that the Minister seems to be falling into the same trap as he fell into before. He asserts now, as he asserted in connection with the last group of amendments, that the amendments inhibit the Secretary of State from making further regulations or detailed plans later. That is not the case. He should not have repeated the same claim as he made before and had to withdraw.
There is nothing in these amendments which stops the Secretary of State from making or altering such regulations later. We say that the Secretary of State has to make plans before the offer of shares for sale. That is agreed. The law requires it; the prospectus will have to say it. The interests of both the shareholders and the users of sewerage services—all of us—surely require that those plans should be sufficiently detailed for customers of sewerage undertakings to know whether they are at risk and what is being done.
Many people are at risk from defects in our sewerage system. So much has to be done that a degree of open government is an essential part of this legislation. The matter has been neglected for many years because there has not been adequate legislation on the subject. At a time when the transfer of ownership of sewerage undertakings into the private sector is taking place it is inexcusable that the Government should not take the opportunity to seek to reassure the British public, not that things are right—because they are not—but that something effective is going to be done about it.

1381
As with the previous amendment, it is only because of the lateness of the hour and not because I am convinced by the answers given to me or convinced that the matter is not as serious as I believe it to be that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 324D to 324F not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 324G:
Page 77, line 41, at end insert—
("(2A) No regulations shall be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has first consulted those associations of local authorities whose members include authorities acting as a sewerage agent.
(2B) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of any regulations to each local authority acting as a sewerage agent at the date of passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Lord Renton: Noble Lords will see that the next amendment on the Marshalled List is also an amendment to add words at the end of line 41 of page 77. I think that, logically speaking, that amendment ought to be considered—although it is not in the order to do so—before the amendment about to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I say that for this reason: my amendment deals with an extension of the power to make regulations. His amendment deals with general matters covering all types of regulation and therefore would come naturally at the end of the clause, rather than in a subsection preceding mine. However, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee in this matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If it is the wish of the Committee, I shall proceed as quickly as possible. I understand what the noble Lord has said, but Amendment No. 324G seeks to involve the views of local authorities earlier rather than later in the regulation-making processes.
Local authorities operate the full sewerage function for 92·5 per cent. of the population and a great reservoir of expertise and local knowledge lies in the engineering departments of local authorities. They are responsible for such functions as computer simulation of sewer networks, hydraulic analysis, structural assessments, drainage area planning, detailed design work, specification and contract management. Local authorities are the primary contact for consumers who experience problems with drains and sewers. When foul smells arise, holes appear in the road, streams are full of sewage and houses are flooded, consumers bring their fears, anxieties and complaints to their town hall as they have done for 100 years and as they will do for the next 100 years, regardless of privatisation.
The interests of consumers need to be carefully protected as sewerage services are taken out of public accountability and into private monopoly ownership. The setting of adequate performance standards is a vital part of that protection of consumer interests. But, if the acknowledged experts are not consulted, there can be little public
1382
confidence in the resulting performance standards. There will be grave doubts as to whether the controls are adequate. There will be serious concern that present standards will fall and that consumers will receive an inferior level of service.
The Under-Secretary of State has given personal assurances, but those are not sufficient guarantee. In Standing Committee, he assured us that it was his intention to consult on the draft regulations in March and April and that local authorities would be consulted through the usual procedures. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether those consultations have taken place and what stage they have reached.
We believe that it is totally irresponsible if the Minister does not adequately take into account the judgment of those who have the most experience of the sewerage system and the closest contact with the consumer. The whole purpose of standards of performance is to ensure that the consumer receives a satisfactory service. The adequacy of performance standards can be guaranteed only if proper consultation with local authorities becomes a minimum legal requirement and, as such, is written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 324G would require the local authorities in connection with their role as sewerage agents to be consulted before regulations under subsection (2) are made and copies of the regulations to be sent to the sewerage agents. The fact is that the functional responsibilities lie with the undertakers themselves. Furthermore, regulations may relate to matters which are in no way reflected in the role of the sewerage agents or to specific areas in which there may be no agency.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has pointed out with reference to my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place, I should now make absolutely clear that local authority associations are currently being consulted on those draft regulations. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: One cannot have fairer than that. In effect in this instance we are being asked to do what is already being done at the present moment. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and have consultations outside to see whether this is satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 324H:
Page 77, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (2) above, or to any right which any person may have by virtue of any other section of this Act or any other Act to bring proceedings in respect of any such right, the Secretary of State may, by regulation, require a sewerage undertaker to pay such amount as may be prescribed to any person affected by flooding of a prescribed description, from any public sewers provided by that sewerage undertaker under the duties imposed by section 67 above.".
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and the Committee will see that it is a starred amendment which I very rarely agree to table.
However, the National Consumer Council late yesterday afternoon sent me a request to table this amendment. It had to be tabled by 6.30 and I was engaged on other proceedings on the Bill so I had to table it without having the time to consider ways in which it might be improved. I must say that had I had that time, this amendment would have been differently drafted.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the Secretary of State makes the regulations that he is empowered to make under Clause 65, which are primarily regulations governing standards of performance in connection with the provision of sewerage services, he should be given power—it is not an obligation but only a power—to make regulations requiring the sewerage undertaker who allows or causes foul water from the public sewer to damage somebody's land or house or other interest to pay compensation under those regulations whatever other rights the person concerned might have.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind that under this Bill there are all kinds of ways—in fact there are nine different provisions—for seeking redress under Part II of the Act alone. I shall not enumerate them all, although I have details with me should anyone press me to give them. They are really very numerous. However, strangely enough there is no right of redress granted for the overflow from the public sewer of foul water or sewage. Therefore one feels that this is something which ought to be covered if we are covering all those other matters.
I should disclose that the National Consumer Council have had a meeting with my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard, QC, MP, who gave the matter careful consideration but concluded that the power should not be given in the form of statutory compensation for foul flooding independent of negligence. He said that it should not be done because of the difficulty of making a provision which is worthwhile to the consumer and yet fair to the undertaker. He said:
"As you will appreciate, foul flooding often occurs for reasons outside the reasonable control of the undertaker".
That may well be so, but he ought to have a very strong obligation to control the matter. That is my first point.
My second point is this. There are other causes within his control. When the cause of the flooding is within his control, and the flooding causes foul water to run over somebody else's property, there should be a liability to compensate irrespective of negligence and irrespective of other opportunities of redress which the person affected may have.
As I say, at this stage this is a probing amendment. It is simply a question of whether power should be given to the Secretary of State to make regulations to require such compensation to be paid. In order to give my noble friend a little more time to consider the matter—as I can see that he is doing at present—perhaps I may just point out that there are quite useful provisions in the Bill—indeed, some of them are in this clause—requiring performance targets and measurement schemes with regard to sewers. They would be a performance indicator.
1384
But that does nothing to compensate the individual consumers who are affected when there is failure. It simply serves to measure in percentage terms whether or not the undertaker has met the target. I think we ought to do something about that. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment, even though it has been put forward as a probing amendment, relates very clearly to the amendments that I have already moved. The question of whether one can have adequate asset management plans that set adequate targets is crucial to the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is putting forward.
I have argued that one can. I have argued that it is possible to set standards and targets, and that if those standards and targets are not met the sewerage authority would be at fault and the redress to which the noble Lord refers ought to be made available. It is also relevant to the discussion that has already taken place because this amendment—even though it may be defective in drafting terms—secures that the Secretary of State has this continuing duty to ensure that matters are put right. If there is redress there is an incentive to the undertaker to put things right and to avoid the necessity for neglect. The continuing duty is an essential part of the argument that is taking place over this Bill.
With all the reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has about his own amendments, I know that his argument is in the right direction. Even if he has to withdraw his amendment now, I hope that together we may reach agreement on a better way to protect the consumer when we return to this Bill at a later stage.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 324H seeks to ensure that the regulations to be prescribed under subsection (2) will include foul flooding and that such inclusion in these regulations would be without prejudice to an individual's right to take action under any other part of this Bill.
It would be quite wrong to include foul flooding in the guaranteed standards scheme. Compensation of £5 would be quite inadequate in relation to the loss or damage sustained in some cases as a result of foul flooding. Furthermore, foul flooding will not necessarily affect people as customers. It could be, and often is, caused by acts of negligence by neighbours; for example, when they block their sewers with unsuitable material, causing backing up and flooding.
I emphasise that quite separate from the guaranteed standards scheme foul flooding will be one of the mandatory service standards, and the director general will be able to act under his parallel powers to specify in regulations standards for improvement, enforceable if necessary.
Liability of the undertakers for foul flooding from sewers is a complicated area of law which has been described by the courts as a rough sea of contradictory authority. In general, if a sewage undertaker were negligent in the operation of its sewers and that caused foul flooding and consequent

1385
damage, the persons who suffered damage would be able to bring an action for negligence against the undertaker.
Finally, the industry listens sympathetically to claims consequent upon incidents of foul flooding and operates a scheme of ex-gratia payments. I hope that my noble friend Lord Renton will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for that interesting comment on the situation. We shall naturally wish to consider it. I would hope, however, that this rough sea of contradictory decisions by the courts is something which we could smooth out by one simple provision in this statute. It would be a splendid thing if we could.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps it could be achieved by pouring macerated sewage over troubled waters?
Lord Renton: If I may say so, that frivolous comment is a little bit beside the point. However, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall further consider the matter, as I am sure he will, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 325 and 326 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 326A:
Page 78, line 6, at end insert—
("(cc) make provision for the satisfactory carrying out of rodent baiting").
The noble Lord said: We are seeking here to add to the clause which deals with the standards of performance. In other words, we are trying to lay down duties which ought to be carried out. It is perfectly clear and bald and well-understood. We seek to lay down a duty to make provision for satisfactory rodent baiting. I know that the Committee will understand that this is not only a serious matter, but that it is raised with serious intent.
Local authorities responsible for rodent control programmes are becoming increasingly concerned. The disturbing result of a survey conducted earlier this year by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities revealed significant underfunding by the regional water authorities for the work of sewer baiting.
In the interests of the nation's health and safety it is becoming more and more evident that the provisions of the Water Bill must include standards of performance relating to sewer baiting to combat and control an already significant nuisance from becoming completely out of hand.
Local councils undertake a regular annual programme of rodent control in sewers. This assists in decreasing the rat population in sewers, thereby reducing both health risks to workers and deterioration of pipework caused by rat activity. The adequate control of rats underground ensures a decrease in surface infestations.
A number of disturbing pieces of evidence have been revealed in the survey undertaken by the AMA. In Manchester for example, the number of surface infestations has doubled in the past six years. Wakefield's rodent problem doubled in 1988 compared with the previous year. Newcastle has seen a 50 per cent. increase during the period 1986–88, while the local authorities of Dudley, Wigan, Barnsley and Barnet have experienced about a 30 per cent. increase on the previous year's figure.
There are several reasons for the increased activity, including a reduced sewer baiting programme; the relatively mild weather over the previous two winters; sewer and drain defects which provide convenient exit points for rats; and an increased food supply both in sewers and on the surface, due largely to an increase in takeaway food shops leading to the increasing disposal of unwanted food on city streets.
The Committee and the Minister will be aware of the prevalence of Weil's disease or leptospirosis. It is an organism which is passed through rats' urine. The disease is painful and debilitating in humans. I have been told that over the past 10 years there have been 444 cases of Weil's disease leading to nine deaths. It is generally accepted that across the country there are as many rats as people; a staggering 50 million rats living in our sewers. In Manchester there are roughly 80,000 manholes of which about 35 per cent. are known to be infested by rats. There is sufficent funding to bait only about 12,000 a year. On that basis it could take as long as seven years to bait the entire manhole complex.
The local authorities in Harrow and Waltham Forest comment that Thames Water Authority has reduced its budgets for funding sewer baiting. Indeed, the latter authority accused Thames Water Authority of reducing funding to an all time low. Yorkshire Water Authority has asked Wakefield for cuts in its costs, although in 1988 the local authority had few problems in obtaining finance. The same water authority has queried the cost of sewer baiting in Barnsley. In Newcastle, where approximately 40 per cent. of the city-centre manholes are infested, a request to the Northumbrian Water Authority for increased funds has also been rejected.
I am aware that the Minister will be in possession of the same facts. We are concerned that not only is this a terrible position which may or may not be tackled energetically, but it is an appalling position which ought to be approached head on. We believe it is essential that in order to protect the public the Water Bill has encompassed within it provisions such as rodent control programmes and adequate frequencies of baiting as laid down by MAFF in its guidelines. We believe that they should be part and parcel of specific standards of performance to be expected of all sewerage undertakings.
I know that the Minister understands that this is a serious matter. However, it is a simple matter to lay down the duty without which we believe the position will become even worse. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 326A would impose on sewerage undertakers the duty to carry out rodent control within sewers. It would effectively

1387
remove this obligation from local authority environmental health departments which are responsible under Section 2 of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 for keeping their areas—including sewers—free from rats and mice. The present water authorities (or local authorities acting as their agents) take steps in line with their general health and safety responsibilities to control rats in their sewers but have no specific duty to do so.
Clause 68 provides for broad standards of performance in the provision of sewerage services. It would be inappropriate to insert a specific duty within a general clause of this nature. Clause 67 already imposes the duty to provide a clean and well maintained sewerage system. The successor companies will be in line with the present water authorities in this respect.
It is undeniable that numbers of rats have increased following two fairly mild winters. When not in your Lordships' House I live in the country and I can assure Members that the increase in the numbers of rats in the country is the same as that in the towns as mentioned by the noble Lord. However, there is no evidence either that poor control within sewers has contributed to this, or that an overall improvement would be brought about by a simple transfer of responsibility from local authorities to sewerage undertakers. Water authorities are already subject to the local authority public health functions, and the private water companies will be in exactly the same position.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, expressed a worry about costs. The answer is that local authorities will have power to take enforcement action and so ensure that any costs fall upon the company.
The last point which the noble Lord mentioned was Weil's disease. I am informed that one of the problems about the increase in Weil's disease is the fact that the vast increase in aquatic sport is also a contributor.
For the reasons that I have mentioned I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: As regards aquatic sports, I remember reading my brief, and the prevalence of the disease in canoeists was drawn to my attention. Of course, in pursuing their sport they have in the main their mouth, nose and eyes exposed to river water. If that becomes polluted, contaminated, poisoned by urine, they are at greater risk.
The last thing I would do is accuse the Minister of complacency. However, in effect he is saying that there is no need to lay a more stringent duty upon the new undertakers than the range of duties which are already laid down. That is done in the face of the tremendous increase in rats. The Minister said, as I had already said, that it is recognised that that is partly due to the mild winter. He decried my point that it is also partly due to the reduction in resources made available by the water authorities to their agents, the local authorities. How does the Minister square up to the information that the local
1388
authorities have given to the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that they asked for the resources but did not receive them? The Minister says that they will have power to do certain things. Does he not understand that having that power and having to go through procedures to obtain the money can be time-consuming and expensive?
I believe that the Minister is sloughing off some responsibility, not for carrying out something but for ensuring that other people do so. He treats the undertakers with a very light hand in respect of functions which are in the interests of the public. I believe that the more the public understand the attitude of the Government in these matters—to make the lightest load possible for the undertakers—the more they will understand that their health is being put even more at risk by that attitude. However, I do not believe that I shall make any further progress this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 326B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 327 and 328 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 328ZA:
After Clause 69, Insert the following new clause:
("Allocation of cross boundary sewers.
—(1) For the purposes of any scheme under Schedule 2 to this Act, so much of any sewer as is vested in a water authority immediately before the transfer date but is—

(a) situated in the area of another water authority; and

(b) maintained for the purpose of draining premises in that area,

shall be deemed to have vested in the other water authority before the coming into force of that scheme.
(2) Where any part of a water authority's sewer is deemed by virtue of this section to have vested in another water authority, anything, which—

(a) has been done by or in relation to the first-mentioned authority for any purposes connected with that part of that sewer; and

(b) is in force or effective immediately before the transfer date,

shall have effect for the purposes of any transitional provision contained in this Act as if it had been done by or in relation to that other authority.
(3) Where any part of a sewer is vested in any sewerage undertaker by virtue of this section, the terms on which that part of that sewer—

(a) communicates with such parts of that sewer or of any other sewer; or

(b) discharges into any such sewage disposal works,

as immediately before the transfer date were vested in the same water authority as that part of that sewer but, by virtue of this section, are vested in another sewerage undertaker shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the Director.
(4) A determination by the Director under this section shall have effect as an agreement between the sewerage undertakers in question but may be varied or revoked by a subsequent determination made by the Director on the application of either of those undertakers, as well as by agreement between the undertakers.
(5) In making a determination under this section, the Director shall have regard to the desirability of a sewerage undertaker's recovering the costs resulting from its allowing the sewers of other sewerage undertakers to communicate with its sewers or to discharge into its sewage disposal works and of securing a reasonable return on its capital.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 328ZA is to insert a new clause after Clause 69. The new clause provides for sewers owned by one water authority but situated in a second water authority's area and draining premises in that area to vest in that second water authority, before any scheme under Schedule 2 which will transfer property to successor bodies takes effect. Thus sewerage undertakers will own the public sewers situated in their areas and draining premises in their areas, even though they cross the boundary into another undertaker's area, where treatment and disposal of sewage from the sewer will take place.
All relevant actions that have taken place with respect to such sewers will be deemed under subsection (2) to have effect as though done in respect of the new owner of the sewers. For example, notices served on the first water authority, the present owner, will be deemed to have been served on the second authority, the new owner.
In case the authorities or their successor companies cannot agree on the terms on which the sewers vested by the Bill should be allowed to drain into the rest of the system, the Director General of Water Services is given power under subsection (3) to determine the terms. Subsection (4) provides for variation of agreements where the director has made a determination. Subsection (5) gives the director guidance on the costs to be recovered under such agreements. Similar guidance is given in other places in the Bill; for example, in Clause 30 concerning agreements about bulk supplies of water given by one water undertaker to another. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Sewerage Functions]:
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 209, line 1, at beginning insert—
("(1A) In section 19 of the 1936 Act (power to require sewer or drain to be constructed so as to form part of the general system), before subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following new subsection—

"( ) Where a person proposes to construct a drain or sewer, and where that drain or sewer is proposed to join an existing drain or sewer which is either part of or linked to sewers vested in the sewerage undertaker shall required him to construct the drain or sewer to a standard which will enable those drains or sewers to be vested with the undertaker under the terms of section 18 above when completed, and it shall be his duty to comply with the requirements of the undertaker.".)

The noble Lord said: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, on beating my record by speaking at about 300 words a minute on the last amendment. His speed was rather like one of his motorcycles. In this amendment we, like the Government, seek to write a further subsection into the Public Health Act 1936. That piece of legislation must have been a major advance when it went on to the statute book because it survives. It was a forward-looking measure when introduced.
I have to say, however, that the local authorities are extremely disappointed that the Government have chosen not to bring forward as part of the Bill long awaited reforms of law on water and sewerage, particularly in respect of sewer adoption. I apologise
1390
to the Minister for jumping the gun with my story earlier. I should have referred to it on this amendment. I shall not repeat it.
The Department of the Environment's own review of water and sewerage law, published as a consultation paper in March 1986, contained many sensible proposals for tidying up the law. It is difficult to understand therefore why the Government have changed their mind and now believe that such reform cannot be carried out. The Government's response has been merely to write to the Law Society asking its members to make clear to clients who are thinking of buying a house that it is important to ascertain the ownership and state of the sewers and to be aware of the financial liabilities involved if the sewers have not been adopted.
Frankly, last year, when everyone was being gazumped almost daily, people ignored that aspect because they were worried about losing a property. No doubt some advice was given but not seriously taken on board. Many people will be suffering as a result.
The Association of District Councils supported a new clause proposed in Standing Committee in the other place by Mr. Christopher Butler. This would have required the water companies to adopt retrospectively all sewers, regardless of size and current state of repair. However, the local authorities were somewhat unhappy with the amendment when they knew that it would be extremely expensive and would not solve the basic problem of ensuring that all sewers were constructed to an adoptable standard in the first place. That was the reason behind my earlier intervention when I referred to a housing estate in my former constituency.
The simple amendment before us is similar to the Department of the Environment's own proposals in its 1986 document. Among other things, that document said:
"The Government…proposes that drains lying in streets or in land laid out for use as streets, and all new sewers should be required to be constructed to a specified standard and (except for private sewerage systems…) rest automatically in the water authorities on completion".
I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: The proposal to construct sewers to specified standards with a view to their automatic adoption was discussed in the 1986 consultation paper on the review of water and sewerage law. We looked very closely at this question following the review in the light of the comments received. Our aim was to develop a procedure for the automatic adoption of all newly constructed sewers which gave undertakers the opportunity to resist adoption of sewers which had been inadequately constructed or were unnecessarily expensive to maintain while protecting developers from the imposition of unreasonable standards by the undertakers. Such a procedure would have to provide for both these requirements without subjecting developers to costly delays in starting work on site. After lengthy consideration and further consultation with interested parties we concluded that the proposal could not be implemented in a way that would be fair and would meet the reasonable requirements of both parties.

1391
We are, however, doing what is practicable to facilitate the adoption of new sewers by preserving and extending the present arrangements under Section 18 of the Public Health Act 1936 which provide for a water authority to enter into an agreement with a developer to adopt a sewer on completion. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Bill provides for a new right of appeal to the Secretary of State against unreasonable refusal by a sewerage undertaker to enter into a Section 18 adoption agreement or against the imposition of unreasonable conditions. This should help to overcome one of the main drawbacks of the present system as perceived by developers and make them much more willing to enter into agreements with undertakers to secure the adoption of sewers under Section 18.
I recognise and share the concern that has been expressed about the need to ensure that all sewers are constructed to a high standard. I hope Members of the Committee will accept the reasons why we are unable to support a move to make sewerage undertakers the final arbiter on standards. I believe that the right of appeal which we have introduced into the present adoption arrangements is as far as it is practicable to go in the circumstances. This is, however, an important change and I am confident that it will facilitate the greater adoption of new sewers. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Newport: I agree that the Government have gone part of the way, but it is a great pity that they did not stick to their original intentions particularly at a time when the property market was boiling over. The truth of the matter is that we should not bend over backwards to developers because they should do the job properly in the first place. The same applies to sewers, water supplies and roads. We are suffering from so many unmade roads in this country which, on frontages, will cost so much to put in order, that it just will not happen. I believe that the same has happened as regards some of the private sewers that have been constructed in recent years. It is sad and in the end it leads to untold problems which generally finish up on MPs' desks. The Government are going some way and I do not intend to press the amendment at this time. It is a pity that they did not stick to their original purposes in 1986. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 328B not moved.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 328C:
Page 209, line 23, leave out ("For subsection (2) of section 34 of the 1936 Act") and insert ("In section 34 of the 1936 Act (right of owners and occupiers to drain into public sewers)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "or the owner" to "thereby" there shall be substituted the words "in the area of a sewerage undertaker or the owner of any private sewer draining premises in the area of such an undertaker shall be entitled to have his drains or sewer communicate with the public sewers of that undertaker and thereby"; and

(b) for subsection (2)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 329:
Page 210, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (c) and insert—

("(c) in subsection (5), for the words from "the occupier" to the end of that subsection there shall be substituted the words "such contravention shall be actionable as a breach of contract between the discharger and the sewerage undertaker.").

The noble Earl said: Again, this is a subject that I mentioned at Second Reading. This amendment addresses industry's main point of concern in this Bill. It is a matter of principle that one private company shall not have the right of criminal prosecution over another. Therefore after privatisation it will no longer be appropriate for breaches of consent conditions to discharge into sewers to be dealt with under the criminal law. That would only apply in cases where other offences are involved, such as protecting workers under the health and safety legislation or protecting the environment under Schedule 9 of this Bill.
I am therefore proposing that as regards all discharges to sewers—namely, those that are not covered by specific legislation addressing the control of dangerous substances—the conditions of discharge should be covered by a commercial contract between the water supply plc and the discharger. Discharges of dangerous substances will continue to be consented to by the appropriate control authority. I intend to advance two good business reasons, among others, for objection to this part of the Bill that places one private company in a position criminally to prosecute another company.
The newly privatised water companies may well wish to diversify their activities into other areas. For example, they may move into the brewing industry. If we were to give them powers to set standards for discharges to sewers and then criminally to prosecute their customers if these standards were breached, that could give the privatised company a distinct and unfair commercial advantage over its competitors. The ability to threaten or prosecute may also give advantage when buying into a market; or it may allow a company to detract from the good image of its competitors. Alternatively, using its own peculiar expertise, the water company may wish to enter the pollution abatement equipment market. It would be far more attractive to a trade effluent discharger to buy from this utility rather than from its competitors because of the added security (which may or may not be the case) of being able to quote that the prosecutor was the company which supplied the equipment which was used and which failed.
There is another and more fundamental objection to this situation. Here I must refer Members of the Committee back to an earlier sitting of this Committee and discussions in relation to a proposed amendment (Amendment No. 4) which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. One of the arguments against the control functions of the National Rivers Authority being contracted out to the water service companies was that it would be completely unreasonable to expect an employee within a company to be in a position of instigating a criminal prosecution against another employee in the same company.
In the case of the proposals contained in this Bill which cover trade effluents discharged to sewers,

1393
such a situation is even more likely to arise, especially if the water supply plcs seek to diversify into other areas of business. During the Bill's passage the Government have repeatedly emphasised their view on the matter. The Secretary of State for the Environment said on Second Reading in another place that those responsible for treatment and disposal of sewage effluent should not also have the task of regulating pollution and prosecuting their own customers.
The creation of the National Rivers Authority removes that problem so far as concerns direct discharges of industrial effluent. However, direct discharges are very much in the minority. As the Bill stands at present, the privatised water undertakings will still have the power of criminal prosecution over the vast majority of their own industrial customers; that is, those which discharge trade effluent to sewers. As I mentioned previously, this will in total be nearly 30,000 companies.
The Minister may not like the actual wording of the amendment; it may be shown to be defective or to have undesirable side effects. However, the principle that one commercial company should be in a position to threaten or take criminal proceedings against another is not acceptable in any form and must be removed from the Bill. Criminal charges should be brought by authorities, not by companies. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: At present discharge of trade effluent without the consent of the water authority, or in breach of the terms of its consent, is an offence. It has been argued that because in future the sewerage undertaker will be a privately owned company it is wrong in principle for the undertaker to be able to determine what shall constitute an offence on the part of another company, and wrong for one company to be able to prosecute another. I recognise the instincts which might lead one towards those conclusions and I will therefore try to explain with some care why we attach importance to the present provision in Schedule 8.
The terms on which trade effluents are accepted or there is refusal by the sewerage undertaker to accept trade effluent are subject to appeal to the director general. The result of those rights of appeal is to remove any arbitrary ability of the undertaker to pick and choose customers, or to impose unreasonable conditions. Essentially, if it is reasonable for the discharge to be made it will be accepted and on reasonable terms.
There can be no excuse for discharging trade effluents without obtaining a consent. It is important to establish whether the sewerage system can cope with such effluents in advance. Where consent has to be refused, or made conditional, or where consent has not been obtained, depending upon the nature of the effluent and the amounts, it is possible that non-complying discharges may potentially cause pollution of watercourses, overloading of sewers, which could cause them in time to collapse, and health or safety risks to employees or the public. These are matters of legitimate public concern, not simply the commercial interests of the undertaker. Consent to discharge trade effluents should always be obtained, and to fail to do so should remain an offence.
1394
The legislation does not specify who should prosecute offences. In the case of discharges of dangerous substances, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution would be able to prosecute. Similarly, in cases leading to pollution of watercourses, the National Rivers Authority might undertake prosecutions. However, there is no reason why in principle the sewerage undertaker should not prosecute. Department stores may prosecute thieves. Any user of a river, including fishing interests or other companies, might indeed prosecute a sewerage undertaker which breached its own discharge consents. In our view, it would be perverse to prevent the undertaker from being able to make prosecutions. For those reasons I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the noble Lord for his response, but I am afraid that I cannot agree. One example he gave was that a shopkeeper may prosecute a thief. Here we are talking about industrial companies prosecuting each other. It just does not make sense. The noble Lord said that the pollution inspectorate could prosecute. That is perfectly correct. It is an authority. The National Rivers Authority could prosecute. That is perfectly correct. But if one company is in the position of being prosecuted by another company criminally, this has very undesirable effects. I gave three examples. It cannot possibly be allowed. Authorities prosecute. Private companies have contractual arrangements between themselves and breach of contract leads to action for damages. But private companies do not undertake criminal prosecutions against another. I am sure that when the Minister considers the matter again, he will concede that there is a serious point here.
Lord Hesketh: I can give an example of three. Associated British Ports, Sealink Ltd. and the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company can all prosecute.
The Earl of Shannon: Do they prosecute their customers? Do they gain commercial advantage with their customers because they are in a position to prosecute?
Lord Hesketh: The purpose of this power is not to gain commercial advantage; nor do I suspect that the companies that I mentioned do. The noble Earl derides the example of the shop, but I also pointed to the example of a company which owns a fishing interest and which would be entirely entitled to prosecute a sewerage undertaker, if there was a discharge into a river. We are talking about ensuring that the system works. The only way to do that is if the undertaker is able to prosecute in the event that there is a discharge of effluents or anything else which has been done without a licence.
The Earl of Shannon: You already have a director general, a National Rivers Authority and the pollution inspectorate—three very good authorities—which could prosecute. Why then give this ability to indulge in criminal prosecution of a commercial company? It clearly does not make sense. I am sure that the Minister wishes to think it

1395
over. Certainly, I will. At this stage, reserving the right to return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 330 and 331 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 332:
Page 210, line 50, leave out ("Director") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: This amendment also relates to a point that I raised on Second Reading. It is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State, rather than the director general, continues to be the person to whom all appeals relating to trade effluent consents are made. Almost invariably, appeals on trade effluent matters will predominantly relate to issues which are in essence of a technical nature and more relevant to the functions of the rivers authority or the pollution inspectorate than to those of the director general. The Secretary of State has in the past always been the arbiter for such appeals and there seems to be little or no justification for a change.
In the unlikely event that the Government do not see and accept the logic of the amendment, I seek an assurance that the director general, when hearing any dispute over trade effluent matters, will be under a clear obligation to consult the appropriate technical bodies, such as the pollution inspectorate, to ensure that all the relevant issues are brought to his attention before he reaches his decision. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: One of the main effects of paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 8 upon existing legislation concerning discharge of trade effluents is to give the director general responsibility for determining appeals concerning trade effluent consents in place of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 3 amends the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 in that way.
Subparagraph (3) of paragraph 3 clarified the fact that there is no right of appeal to the director concerning charges in cases where charges are fixed under a charges scheme under Clause 75. The intention of Amendment No. 332 may be to give the responsibility of determining appeals with respect to non-standard charges—that is, those not included in a charges scheme—to the Secretary of State, rather than the director. In order to achieve that, subparagraph (2) would also need amendment.
We are not sympathetic to the presumed intention of the amendment. The director has a duty under Clause 7 to ensure that the interest of customers and potential customers are protected with respect to charges and to ensure that there is no undue discrimination. The director is therefore in the best position to hear appeals on charging issues related to trade effluent consents and because of his wide ranging information-gathering powers will be able to take any appropriate technical advice he considers necessary, which is why I urge resistance to the amendment.
The Earl of Shannon: I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope that the director general will realise that he should have technical advice. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 211, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
The noble Earl said: This is another matter of which I gave notice on Second Reading that I should be moving at this stage. Contracts between a sewerage undertaker and its customers should be regarded as commercially confidential. In some instances, particularly in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and many other sectors, information about the content of a company's effluent discharge would be of commercial interest to that company's competitors.
The only information which it would be appropriate to place on a public register would be that relating to discharges of dangerous substances (controlled under Schedule 9). It will be the limits set by the pollution inspectorate to control "Red List" discharges and those discharges which go direct to rivers which are of interest to the public.
An arrangement whereby a discharger discharges into the sewer and that input to the sewage works is then treated is a matter of confidence between the discharger and the treatment plant or the sewerage undertaker. The public is not concerned until that discharge, after treatment, goes to the outside world. There is no reason to give a "green" busybody with time on his hands and nothing else to do the opportunity to start indulging in vexatious litigation or anything else on a matter that does not concern him, it being a matter of a discharge through a sewer to a sewage works. It is only after it leaves the sewage works that it is of any interest to the public. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 333A or 333B.
Lord Hesketh: At present trade effluent agreements and variations to consents are publicly available under the Public Health (Drainage of Premises) Act 1937; the Public Health Act 1961; and the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Because trade effluents flow through public sewers under our streets, and the contents after treatment ultimately are discharged into the environment, there is a legitimate public interest in these matters. I have already spoken about the relationship between the undertakers and dischargers under our discussion on Amendment No. 329. The requirement to allow for public inspection of a register of consents and agreements reflects the points I made on that amendment. It is for those reasons that I urge that the amendment be rejected.
The Earl of Shannon: I am very sorry that British industry should be placed in this disadvantageous position. I hope that the Government realise that

1397
they are giving away, or are about to give away commercial secrets of British industry on the grounds that if it flows under the streets, somebody might like to know something about it. That is severely damaging to British industry and I hope that the Government realise that. Obviously I shall not get any further, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Newport Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 333A:
Page 211, line 28, at end insert—

("(f) analyses of samples taken of the effluent that is the subject of a consent,").

The noble Lord said: As has already been said, paragraph 3(5) of Schedule 8 seeks to amend the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act 1937 to establish a register of discharge of consents under that Act. The register is to be publicly available.
Amendment No. 333A seeks to enlarge that register by requiring that analyses of samples taken of the effluent should be shown in relation to each consent. Trade secrets—and I draw this to the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon—would be protected by the consequential Amendment No. 333B.
Samples of trade effluent are needed to show what is going into a sewage treatment works, as some of what goes in may come out the other side unaltered or only slightly reduced, depending on the adequacy of the works. Information such as this would provide knowledge as to the effectiveness of the works and would allow those affected by pollution from a sewage treatment works to target the real cause of the problem. I beg to move.
Lord Hesketh: Amendment No. 333A provides for the addition to that consolidated list of a requirement to disclose analyses of samples taken of a trade effluent that is the subject of a consent. Amendment No. 333B would provide that where a discharger satisfies the Secretary of State that it would be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice, to an unreasonable degree, some private interest, he may obtain from the Secretary of State a certificate of exemption from disclosing certain items on the public register. A similar provision to this already exists with respect to the NRA's register of consents.
There is a difference between the discharge of trade effluent to a sewer and the discharge by the utilities to rivers, for which there is provision under Clause 113(1)(e) for information on analyses of samples to be made publicly available. The discharge by a company to a sewer would be a matter for contractual agreement between two private companies, and for undertakers to decide what monitoring is necessary. It is the responsibility of the sewerage undertaker to ensure that once treated the utilities' discharges meet the terms of their discharge consents. The legitimate public concern in what is discharged to the environment is reflected in the provision under Clause 113(1)(e) that analyses should be publicly available on a register maintained
1398
by the NRA. Monitoring undertakers by the NRA is of course an important part of fulfilling its general duty under Clause 103. The sewerage undertaker will have all the necessary powers to ensure that the terms of the consent are met, and indeed it is very much in his interest to do so. It is not therefore appropriate or necessary in this case to require that analyses of samples of trade effluents be made available to the public. It is for those reasons that we resist the amendments.
Lord Ross of Newport: I think I received a fairly good explanation of how the Government see this working out. I do not intend to press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 333B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 334 to 338 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 338A:
Page 213, line 1, at end insert—
(".—( 1 ) In section 18( 1 )(b) of the Building Act 1984 (building over sewer etc.) at end insert "or any resource main, water main, discharge works or any other underground works shown on the relative map of water mains'.
(2) In section 18(2)(b) of that Act after the word "sewer" insert "or resource main, water main, discharge pipe or any other underground works other than a service pipe vested in the water undertaker".
(3) In section 18(4)(a) of that Act after the word "drain" insert "or resource main, water main, discharge pipe or any other underground work other than a service pip" vested in the water undertaker.".
(4) In section 18(5) of that Act at end insert "map of water mains" means the map of water mains etc. kept by a water undertaker under section 155 of the Water Act 1989.".").
The noble Baroness said: In deference to the late hour, I shall speak as fast as I am able. I shall speak to Amendment No. 338B first. The Government have already recognised that Section 18 of the Building Act 1984 needs amending by extending the protection given by the present legislation to sewers as regards building above them, and also to protect sewers, and now drains and disposal mains, from buildings which would interfere with the use of a sewer, drain or disposal main or cause the obstruction of the access to any sewer, drain or disposal main.
The government amendments to this Bill are certainly to be welcomed. I shall illustrate the problem addressed by my amendment. In 1987 there was an incident near Norwich when it was discovered that a building was being built within three inches of a trunk sewer. The building was a house. The house was being built at right angles to and within three inches of the sewer. The building was not being built over the sewer, and the district council did not notify the water authority under Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. The proximity of the building works to the sewer was only discovered when the sewer was uncovered during building works. The water authority would not have wanted the builders to demolish the building—but wanted the owner to agree to pay any costs it incurred in future maintenance of that sewer due to the proximity of the buildings.
The house was not being built over the sewer and was not therefore caught by the existing wording of Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. The amendment to Section 18 of the Building Act 1984, in Schedule 8 paragraph 6 of the Bill, extends the protection given by that section to buildings which would interfere with the use of a sewer or obstruct the access to a sewer. It is arguable whether that building within three inches of the sewer would have been caught by either of those amendments.
In the case of this particular building, I am referring to the footings of the building which were deeper than the sewer. The load of the buildings went to the ground below the sewer. However, when the time eventually came for the sewer to be replaced the building was so close that it might have needed to be knocked down. Who would have paid then?
More serious problems arise when the footings of a building near a sewer are above the level of that sewer. In that case, the load of the building will go onto the sewer. That can cause structural problems for both the building and the sewer. The sewer could collapse and cause the building to settle. The sewer could leak. The ground under the building would then wash away and the building would settle. The amendment I am seeking would benefit both the sewerage undertakers and the public.
In the case I have just mentioned, the corner of the building was at right angles to the sewer. That building would not necessarily have interfered with the use of the sewer. Although it would have obstructed access by machine to the sewer, access would have been possible, although very difficult, by hand. By suggesting the insertion of the words "subjecting weight onto" in this schedule, I am trying to extend the categories of proposed buildings near sewers which local authorities should notify to sewerage undertakers.
The Building Act 1984 only comes into effect when plans are deposited in accordance with building regulations. Some buildings do not need building regulation consent. For example, some garages with a floor area not exceeding 30 square metres do not need building regulation consent. Therefore, some further amendment to the legislation to require notification to sewerage undertakers before buildings not needing building regulation consent are constructed is needed.
Amendment No. 338A proposes a change to Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. That section is designed to protect sewers from building overhead. The effect of the amendments I am proposing would be to extend that protection to water mains and other pipes belonging to water undertakers. Why cannot the protection offered by Section 18 extend to water mains as well as sewers? Both sewers and water mains would be seriously affected if any building were to be built overhead. It makes sense to extend protection to both. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: At this time of night I hope as briefly as possible to lay the amendment of my noble
1400
friend to rest. Amendment No. 338A would amend Section 18 of the 1984 Act to add a further circumstance in which building plans may be rejected by a local authority. There is little evidence of any problem in practice to justify including works shown on water main maps in Section 18 of the 1984 Act.
While there is a clear case for specific protection for access etc. for sewers, there is less for mains, and different regimes are justified. Undertakers will have more positioning flexibility in laying water mains, through which water is usually pumped, than sewers, which operate by gravity. If undertakers are concerned about the likelihood of future building over their water mains they can, and indeed do at present, negotiate an easement with the landowner when the pipe is laid or buy land to protect their longer-term interests.
My noble friend's second amendment seeks to add a further case in which building plans may be rejected by a local authority. It would require local authorities to consider whether drains, sewers or disposal mains would be subject to weight—that is, some form of lateral or oblique loading as a result of proposed development—as well as interference or obstruction.
We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Development which subjected weight onto the sewer to the extent that it would interfere with the use of the sewer would be covered by the existing proposed amendments to Section 18 of the Building Act 1984. To the extent that the proposed load on the sewer would not cause interference with its use, no action is necessary.
In view of this reply I hope that my noble friend will agree not to press these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in view of the late hour, I shall read with interest what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 338B not moved.]
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Financial conditions of sewer requisition.]
[Amendments Nos. 339 and 340 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 71 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.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.