§ Where any company or authority authorised to supply water, light, heat, or power has, on the requisition or at the request of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, supplied water, light, heat, or power to any factory, building, camp, or other premises, and such supply is not authorised by law, whether by reason of the premises not being within the area of supply of the company or authority or otherwise, or is in contravention of any agreement made by the company or authority, the company or authority after the termination of the War shall, if and so long as required by any Government Department to do so, continue the supply, and, if the premises are not within the area of supply of the company or authority, the company or authority shall have the like power with respect to the supply of water, light, heat, or power to the premises as if the premises were within its area of supply, and as if any roads or bridges along, across, over, on, or under which any pipes or lines or other works have been laid for the purpose of supplying the premises were roads which the company or authority were authorised to break up for the purpose of their undertaking.
§ Mr. BOYTONI beg to move, after the word "premises" ["any factory, building, camp, or other premises"], to insert the words "situate upon lands of which a Government Department continue in possession under Section 1 of this Act."
The powers suggested may be justified in times of war and by an emergency, but they should be continued by a Government Department only if the power sought is absolutely essential and they are permanently installed.
§ Dr. ADDISONMy right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has further down on the Order Paper an Amendment which I think better meets the case that the hon. Member has in his mind than his own words. It gives the power up to twelve months after the War. If my hon. Friend will accept the later form it will be well, because his Amendment will solely 2369 apply to the one case where we are in possession, and not where we may have to acquire possession.
§ Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERThe effect of the Amendment put down by the Solicitor-General is that the matter can only arise for a year after the termination of the War, and it will be necessary for the consent of the Railway Commission to be obtained to enable any company or authority to supply the water, light, heat, or power outside their various limits. It does not go far enough. At least it ought to provide that no company or authority should continue to supply outside their limits if that authority has statutory powers to supply and should be unready and unwilling to supply. I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend should be accepted, so that, as far as possible, a supply should be prevented except by the authority which has power to give it.
§ Dr. ADDISONThere are cases where large factories have been created. Take the one at Lancaster. It happens to be supplied with power and light, I think, by the Lancaster authority, while, on the other hand, a portion of the factory is situated in the Morecambe district. Obviously it will be absurd, at the end of the War, if, by a stroke of the pen, power and light ceased to be supplied on the other side of the border. There must be some time allowed to adjust matters. Hence the suggestion of twelve months that appears in my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. I would like to point out that in the Amendment there is nothing said about being unable or unwilling to supply. In some of these cases we have to take a large urban district some distance out in the country, where, it may be, there is six miles between the source of supply and where the power is needed. In cases such as this there is no considerable authority near that has an adequate supply.
The CHAIRMANWe are now, I think, discussing the substitute Amendments dealing with this matter. The present Amendment only deals with an area, and I think it will be better to dispose of it first.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs I understand it, the object of the Amendment of my hon. Friend is to limit the powers of the Government to take water, light, heat, or power to those premises which are 2370 situated upon land which the Government Department continue in possession of under Section 1 of this Act. As I read it, unless this is put in, any Government Department can requisition any company or authority to supply them with water, light, heat, or power, whether or not that Government Department is within the area of the supply of that company or authority, provided that the Government Department say that it is for purposes connected with the present War. That goes very much further, I must say, than the words of the Amendment, and it also goes very much further, I think, than what is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, who, in his arguments against my hon. Friend's Amendment, has dealt, through the whole of his speech, with the munitions work and various factories which have been established, and with which this Bill is supposed to deal. But this Clause, as I read it, goes quite outside the ordinary scope of the Bill, and would allow any Government Department who choose to say that they wanted water, light, heat, or power for purposes connected with the War—
§ Dr. ADDISONThere can only be one Department by virtue of the powers of the Bill.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIf that is so, why not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, because, as I understand it, that Amendment simply defines what the Government Department has to be?
§ Dr. ADDISONA particular factory may have been acquired, and, therefore, it would be dealt with under another Section. This other will not cover the case.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI really do think this Amendment is necessary. Government Departments are not perfect. I do not wish to cast any discredit upon them, but they do sometimes presume upon their powers, and I think this ought to be defined. Might I ask my hon. Friend if he will leave out the words "Section one of." That would define the area in which the Government have power to compel local authorities or other people to supply these things outside their district.
§ Mr. BOYTONI have not any real objection. I understand the subject will be dealt with rather more fully on another Amendment. I personally have no objection to withdrawing the words "Section one of."
§ Sir F. BANBURYPerhaps then the Amendment might be put in that form?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "Section one of."
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Words "Section one of" left out.
§ Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ Sir G. CAVEOf course the difficulty is this: There might be a case where the Government had acquired land but had put someone else in possession for the purpose of carrying on war work, and it might be the supply of water was absolutely essential to that factory in order that the work might be carried on. This Amendment would shut out that case entirely. I do not wish to be unreasonable, but is it not enough that you are protected by the proviso that I am going to move a little later on that the supply shall not continue for more than twelve months except with the consent of the Commission?
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not think that is so.
§ Sir G. CAVEIf it is not enough, we can devise some other protection, but I think this Amendment goes further, and shuts out a factory which might be necessary for the defence of the realm. If I could meet the hon. Member I should be glad to do it, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNERWhat we want is that works should not be disposed of to another authority, and permission given to continue the supply when the supply is coming from an area of another authority. In war you can take water or anything you want from anybody, but this Amendment and other Amendments which we have down are to secure that the Government is not to sell these works with all these rights to somebody else. In limiting it to twelve months you have, of course, some protection, but not very much. We have every confidence in the Commission, but the municipalities are very jealous indeed about their rights, and they do not like to be overridden in this way without some adequate protection.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI do not know whether the suggested Amendment of the learned Solicitor-General is really a satisfactory way of dealing with this general question. I am not quite sure the Amendment now before us settles it satisfactorily. This Clause does raise very important matters for municipalities, water companies, and undertakings of that kind, and, of course, it is necessary to have the matter cleared up in some way. It is a very tall order indeed that a water company, for instance, may be supplying water unauthorised by law, which everybody admits does not matter during war time; but then this Clause goes on to provide that, although they are not supplying it by law, they may continue to supply the water so long as required by any Government Department to do so. Here is a large works. They go for a water supply to a company which has no power to supply that district. The company which does supply in that district does not object because it is war time, and we are asked to pass a Clause that this illegality may be continued if a Government Department desires it. It can serve no useful public purpose to pass legislation in that way. It cannot help munitions, the War Office, or the public. It seems to me an unnecessary proposal altogether, and it is really up against the Government to propose something more generally useful than the words we have before us. I do not like the Solicitor-General's words, and I do not think the Amendment before us meets the case; but there is a case here to be met, and I hope the Government will see that none of those illegalities are perpetuated by this Bill. The water companies do not want other companies coming in after the War is over supplying water inside their area, and it is the same with gas companies, electric light companies, municipalities, or whatever it may be. I therefore trust the Government will see us out of this without having to press further Amendments upon them.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe reply of the learned Solicitor - General has really shown there are two points in this Amendment. One is that if the Government sell or dispose of a factory, which it is very important to carry on to private individuals, it might be, those private individuals could not obtain the water necessary to carry on the factory, and that therefore they would be injured. That is a point which was in my mind, but which I did not raise because I thought it better 2373 to raise it on a later Amendment. As the learned Solicitor-General has raised it, I must say it seems to me a very important point. Take the illustration given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A large factory is being supplied with water, heat, light, or power—it all comes to the same thing—by a company or an authority outside the area in which this factory is situated. No one objects to that being done during the War, but take the case of water. It applies to all of them, but water is perhaps a better case to illustrate my point. After the War this is to go on indefinitely. This factory may use a very large amount of water, and all the time this water is to be taken out of somebody else's area. Anyone who has been conversant with water companies or the supply of water by municipalities— because the same thing applies to both— in many cases knows it is very difficult to get a sufficient amount of water to supply their own area, and if they are to be compelled to supply a large quantity outside their area what is to happen to the people inside the area? During the continuance of the War that may be a proper thing, and people must put up with the discomfort which arises from being at war, but after the War I see no reason whatever why this factory which is disposed of to certain people should not obtain the water from its own area, or get it from wells. Why should you go outside your area, and compel, for instance, the Metropolitan Water Board even which sometimes are not sufficiently flush of water to supply large factories outside their area, because it might be one but many areas. The Solicitor-General will remember that we had a private discussion and that point did occur. I think it made some impression upon him. The other point which I raised, and which has not been met at all, ' is that the Government Department has in no way defined, and that was not met by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions. What we want to do is to define it so that any War Department —the Treasury, for instance, which might say it had done something for war purposes—should not be allowed to go outside the area and take certain water, light or power, which would not be given to them in the ordinary course, but which in the ordinary course would go to the inhabitants of that particular area. It is a very important question indeed, and I really think that some Amendment very 2374 different from the Amendment which the Solicitor-General has on the Paper must be put down.
§ Mr. HORNEThe powers of the Clause are not confined to the supply of water to any factory which may be outside the area of supply, but the Government are taking powers to buy adjacent lands to those factories, and, unless this Amendment is pressed, they will be able afterwards to dispose of those lands, and say they are able to supply them with water and other conveniences under the powers of this Clause. The Clause may be right so far as it refers to the existing factories, but it will not be right to give powers to supply with water and other conveniences to other lands and future factories built after the War is concluded.
§ Dr. ADDISONI appeal to hon. Members not to press this too hard. With reference to the point of the right hon. Baronet, I am advised that it clearly refers to only those three Departments. We have no intention it should refer to other Departments, and if it is not clear we will make it so. In respect to the other points raised, I am quite sure hon. Members do not want to press the case of any particular local authority against the public interest. If they are totally unable to supply the power, then we have no plan to supply it, and it is for these reasons only that recourse was had to a source of supply outside the area in which the factory was situated. It was only because the authorities could not supply the power that we make this proposal. Surely it would not be in the public interest in the case of the factory I mention, part of which is in one district and part in another, to say that the place should be divided into half, one-half to be supplied by one authority, and the other half by the other. That would not be business. It might be that one authority has a most expensive plant. By all means let there be a proper arrangement between the authorities whereby you do not penalise one authority at the expense of another. As this proposal stands, it would mean that the guillotine would fall and at the end of this particular time this eminently business-like and necessary arrangement could not go on. Really that would be absurd, and I am certain no local authority would want to press a claim to that length, because it would be absolutely against the public interest. It seems to me that what we have suggested covers the whole case, and you 2375 allow twelve months to turn round. This could not continue unless it received the consent of the Commission. With the strong powers the local authorities have, the Commission would never give its consent to a continuance of what has been described as an illegality unless there was a very good and necessary cause shown. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to press this Amendment, because I am quite sure it is not in the public interest, and in some cases it would bring important national factories to a standstill.
Colonel F. HALLIt has been admitted that the proposals brought forward are not going to meet all the circumstances, and it has been practically acknowledged that some alteration will have to be made. With all the expert advice that the Government have got behind them, and as they admit it is necessary to make some alteration, surely under the circumstances the Solicitor-General can make some proposition which the Government is prepared to accept to meet this difficulty. I am sure the Committee is not anxious to delay this Bill, but those who have had any connection with local authorities know how jealous they are to see that their rights are protected. If something can be brought forward to protect the rights of the municipalities, judging by the feeling of the Committee, I feel that we should be prepared to accept it.
§ Mr. PROTHEROI think we should be prepared to meet these difficulties in a reasonable way. The condition of things complained of is only to last twelve months, and surely we all wish, with the consent of the Commission, that the period may be prolonged. It can only last twelve months, and that is a time which any reasonable man would look for in order to allow businesses to be wound up. With that proviso it seems to me that the great objection to municipal supplies in one area being appropriated to purposes outside their own area disappears. If the area which is supplying the water or gas, or the electricity, is in any way prejudiced then the Commission will not give their consent. It seems to me that in no other way has anyone suggested anything approaching a settlement in the place of the moderate proposals of the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member who represents the Munitions Department, and therefore I think their proposals ought to be accepted.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYWith regard to the Commissioners' consent to the prolongation, the mere power to give or withhold consent might fail to meet the requirements of the case. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will consider that point?
§ Sir G. CAVECertainly.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir G. CAVEI beg to move, after the word "supply" ["continue the supply"], to insert the words "but not beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and before giving such consent the Commission shall give to the company or authority in whose area of supply the premises are situated, and any other person who appears to them to be interested in the continuance or discontinuance of such supply, an opportunity of being heard."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. BOYTONI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "Provided that no supply of water shall be given or shall continue to be given under this Section by any company or authority if and so long as such supply would interfere with the supply for domestic purposes within the area of supply of such company or authority." I am hopeful that the Solicitor-General will accept this Amendment.
§ Sir G. CAVEI have no objection to this Amendment in principle, but I wish to move to leave out the words "interfere with" and to insert instead thereof the word "prejudice."
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLIt is difficult to follow the purport of the words under discussion. I wish to know if the Amendment in its present form would meet the Amendment I have on the Paper. Take, for example, the case of the Metropolitan Water Board. Would the Amendment we have now before us prevent an outside company continuing, after a certain time, supplying 2377 within the present Metropolitan Water Board area district? If it would have that effect it would meet the point I am raising.
§ Sir G. CAVEIt would not.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Words, "Provided that no supply of water shall be given or shall continue to be given under this Section by any company or authority if and so long as such supply would prejudice the supply within the area of supply of such company of authority," there inserted.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words, "Provided that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed as authorising any water company or water authority to supply otherwise than by agreement to or at any place which is outside their limits of supply and within the limits of supply of the Metropolitan Water Board."
Although the Solicitor-General's Amendment has been carried it only gives the water company the power to be heard. No other water company can supply in the Metropolitan area because those rights are held by the Metropolitan Water Board. Under the Amendment we have just carried, if anybody was required to supply water within the Metropolitan Water Board area the only right that board would have would be to be heard before the Commission. What right have we to take away their powers? The Metropolitan Water Board have statutory power to supply water without going before the Commission and spending public money in this way, and why should we give to others the right which that Board obtained from Parliament, and which the ratepayers of the Metropolitan area paid over £40,000,000 to acquire? We have no right to take away from them this power, and I do not think the Solicitor-General should attempt to take away such rights. In order to secure everything the Government want to carry them over the War and place the Metropolitan Water Board in the same position they are now in under this Bill during the trying time of this War, I move the Amendment standing in my name.
§ Sir G. CAVEMy hon. Friend is advocating the rights of a board of which he is a distinguished member, but I really do not think that we can give to that particular water board a privilege which we 2378 are not prepared to give to other authorities of the same kind. It would not be fair to give an exemption to one board and not give it to other similar bodies throughout the country. The Metropolitan Water Board, like every other similar board or company, will have the right to bring their case before the Commissioners, and I hope with that my hon. Friend will be content.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI quite agree, if this Amendment is accepted, that it must include all public companies and municipalities, but there is just one point which has occurred to me. Is there anything under this Clause, as it stands at present, to prevent any factory purchased from the Government asking those who have been supplying them with water if they will continue to do so, charging a little less than the company authorised to supply water in that area?
§ Sir G. CAVEThe Commissioners would interfere.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not see why the Commissioners should know anything about it, and, if they did, I do not see that it would be their business to interfere. Their business would be to allow these people to have the water provided it did not interfere with the requirements of the inhabitants in the district. I do not know why the Commissioners should interfere because they make a bargain and get the water cheaper. I think this is a dangerous Clause, the meaning of which we have not properly understood, but that is one of the disadvantages of passing a Bill like this in an empty House, when, unfortunately, there are very few lawyers in it.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI do not think I can press this Amendment. The Solicitor-General has been so willing to help the Committee generally with regard to the Bill that one does not like to press any Amendment which he does not wish to put into the Bill, but I can imagine in the days to come some learned brother of his arguing before the Commissioners what was the intention of Parliament. They will read out this Clause from beginning to end and attach a most important meaning to everything in the Bill. If any of us are alive then and read the case we shall be able to say, "That was not the intention of Parliament at all. The Committee sat and saw the awkwardness of these words, but it did not make provision for this because it would have had to put in all the 2379 other companies." We want, however, to help the Government to get the Bill, and I do not therefore press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. DENNISSI am not quite sure whether it is too late, but I should like to ask you, as a point of Order, whether I can move to insert another Amendment by way of a proviso? The Amendment which has just been accepted refers only to water, whereas the whole scheme applies to light, heat, and power as well as water. All the arguments which apply to water apply equally to light, heat, or power, and if we could get a proviso including light, heat, and power the matter would be complete. I suppose we have passed the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and it would not be possible after the word "water" to insert the words "light, heat, or power," but would it be possible to have a separate proviso?
§ Sir G. CAVEPut an Amendment down for the Report stage.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.