HC Deb 24 November 1919 vol 121 cc1585-92

(1) The Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, may by Order authorise any district electricity board or any authorised undertakers to abstract water from any river, stream, canal, inland navigation or other source, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the district electricity board or authorised undertakers to utilise and return the water so abstracted, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order, but the board shall not in any case make such an Order until, notice of their intention to make the Order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the board may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto, and such Order may provide for the recovery of penalties for infringement of the Order:

Providad that—

  1. (a) where the source from which the water is to be abstracted is a canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour regulated by Act of Parliament, or where any existing rights of riparian owners will be affected by the abstraction of the water, the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order, and shall provide that the water not consumed shall be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted; and
  2. (b) the Order shall require that all water not consumed (and in no case less than ninety-five per cent, of the water abstracted) shall be returned in a condition not leas pure than when it was abstracted and at a temperature not higher than such as may be specified in the Order (which temperature shall be fixed at such a degree as appears to the board necessary to avoid injury to public health or to fisheries, if any), or in the case of a canal or inland navigation to the works, thereof, or to vessels using the same, or to the trade or business carried on by any person using the same for the purposes of or in connection with his trade or business.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1, a), after the word "shall" ["not consumed shall be returned"], insert the words "subject to any agreement to the contrary."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Sir F. HALL

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after paragraph (b), to insert (c) no Order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from any dock regulated by Act of Parliament or from the Manchester Ship Canal except with the consent of the owners thereof and subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed. I may say that we have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I think he will agree with me that a Clause was included which would give the necessary protection to the docks. He and his advisers recognised the difficulties that might accrue if, for instance, the Commissioners had power to take out wherever they wanted the water, and return it practically at any temperature without making arrangements with the various authorities. We recognised, and we wanted to get my hon. Friend to acknowledge, that the same facilities should be granted with regard to the Manchester Ship Canal, but I will be perfectly honest and say that, although my hon. Friend was prepared to give us the Clause to which I have referred if, for instance, the words "or from the Manchester Ship Canal" were excluded, he readily recognised difficulties might accrue. But I would like my hon. Friend to recognise the fact that on that canal, which extends for thirty-six and a half miles, ships of 10,000, 12,000, and 15,000 tons are continually passing up and down. If water is to be taken out at certain places and returned at others, there are certain currents, and the rush of water, through being returned, will cause vessels to sheer away and block the canal. You will have all sorts of difficulties.

Another point. That is in regard to the heat of the water. Hon. Members may think that only a very small quantity of water is required. That is not so. There are big docks, and in these the water might be utilised two or three times in the twenty-four hours. It is returned in many cases at a very high temperature. What I am saying particularly applies to November, December, and January, and particularly along the banks of the canal where the riparian owners are who have special privileges. There are heavy fogs. You add to the difficulties here by returning water at a very high temperature because of the humidity. You add to the local fogs, with the result that you may have very many accidents to the shipping in those districts. The Manchester Corporation have gone very carefully into this matter. They are desirous of assisting the authorities so far as they possibly can. It will be remembered that we had a discussion on the Transport Bill. The Government recognised this aspect of the case by inserting a special provision, I think in Clause 4, granting the same facilities, and putting the Manchester Ship Canal on exactly the same footing and conditions, as the docks and harbours. They thereby recognised that, at all events, the canal should be accepted upon the same terms as the docks and harbours. At this late hour I do not desire to elaborate, but my right hon. Friend has had a very important deputation, which has discussed, these matters with him. I think that he will agree that they made it perfectly clear, at all events as regards the docks, that they ought to be treated in the way I have suggested, and that you should not take water from them, but leave them their statutory powers, and in the hands of the various boards that have been appointed. We do not think that this House could say that the Electricity Commissioners should override the decisions which would be arrived at by these authorities. To these capable bodies, to the Manchester Ship Canal authority, for instance, from the port alone there are eleven out of the twenty-one who have been appointed directors. Therefore, it will be realised that the people who have jurisdiction under the Statutes are more capable of judging what is necessary than any Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. LESLIE SCOTT

I beg to second this Amendment, which is one of very considerable importance. Dock authorities and the Manchester Ship Canal, which is in the same category, have very great national responsibility in regard to the navigation of the Mercantile Marine of this and other countries. It is vitally important that everything connected with the navigation of shipping that can be done should be done in the docks and the Manchester Ship Canal. In the Transport Act this House decided that although under Section 3 orders may be given by the Minister of Transport which had to be obeyed by the directors and other persons concerned with the management, and officers and servants of any undertaking of which possession was taken, that provision should not apply either to docks, except railway docks, or to the Manchester Ship Canal. The reason of that decision was that it was vitally necessary that complete discretion should be left to the authorities responsible for the management of the docks or ship canal upon which the safety and general good management of shipping within the docks and canal depended. Since the Government have taken the view that the Minister of Transport should be substituted for the President of the Board of Trade under this Act, this Clause 15 must be considered as if in the first line the Minister of Transport took the place of the Board of Trade. The Clause as drawn provides that the Minister of Transport shall have the powers which were originally intended to be conferred on the President of the Board of Trade which are the powers of making these orders for the use of the water and docks, or the Manchester Ship Canal for electricity purposes. I understand that in the case of a very large generating station a larger quantity of water might be needed during the twenty-four hours, and that a constant flow and the return water might amount to a larger volume, and it might be of a considerable temperature. I am advised by those responsible for the Liverpool docks and the Manchester Ship Canal that the return of a larger volume of water in itself apart from its temperature is a matter of considerable danger. I have had considerable experience of collisions in docks and on the Manchester Ship Canal I know that even a small flow of water may cause a ship to sheer and strike a bank where there is not much water under the keel. The point is that it is vitally necessary that the authority responsible for the management of the canal or the docks should have the whole responsibility and that that responsibility should not be taken away from it. That was put forward here when the Transport Bill was under discussion, so that, you cannot expect a number of very busy and able men to give their time, as they do to-day, to the administration of great concerns like the Port of London Authority, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, or the Manchester Ship Canal, and take decisions which they regard as their right, and which probably are right, and have those decisions overruled by any Government Department. That is the point. The House took the view that that was right, and in Section 4 of the Transport Act it is provided that no Order shall be made under Section 3 of that Act affecting docks regulated by Act of Parliament or the Manchester Ship Canal without the consent of the dock authority or of the Manchester Ship Canal authority. That precedent, from the point of view of common sense, is binding for practical purposes in this House, and the same principle ought to be applied here. I understand that the Government concede the principle by being willing to accept the Amendment so far as docks are concerned. That concession of principle carries us the whole way. There is no distinction at all in principle between the docks at Liverpool on each side of the Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal and the docks at Manchester. They are all in the same position. The public position is that you must leave the discretion in the hands of the authority responsible to the public for the wise management of the concern. I submit very strongly to the Home Secretary that in this case he ought to concede that the Manchester Ship Canal should be put on the same footing as the Liverpool docks. I venture to hope that he will take a reasonable view of the matter.

On that assumption the Manchester Ship Canal Company in 1909 were asked by the Manchester Corporation to allow them to have at Barton a large supply of water for the purposes of a big fire station which was contemplated. The Ship Canal Company were asked to do it in circumstances in which they thought danger would be caused to the traffic on the canal. They therefore refused. Last year, the conditions being somewhat different, the Canal Company were satisfied, and entered into the agreement. That shows that the directors of the Canal Company recognise public needs and are anxious and willing to meet them. There was another case. At Runcorn a large power station was in contemplation of, I think, 25,000 kilowatt power. The Canal Company have gone carefully into the matter, and have come to the conclusion that an agreement can safely be made, and they have made it. These two instances show that it is not only right in principle not to submit the Manchester Ship Company to any Order made under this Bill, but that it is right to rely upon their common sense and their readiness to make reasonable agreements where they are required.

Mr. SHORTT

My hon. and learned Friend is quite mistaken in saying that I make any admission of the principle at all. It is perfectly true that the words "or from the Manchester Ship Canal" were eliminated from this Amendment as accepted, but I should not have accepted it from any point of view of principle at all. I accepted it simply for the reason that it did not much matter with regard to docks, but when you come to the canals it is altogether different. The Manchester Ship Canal is like any other canal. My hon, and learned Friend himself, by his account of what has happened during the last few years, has shown the necessity of having the canal as a means of getting water power if necessary. Why should the Manchester Ship Canal be different from any other canal? They are protected by the provision that "in the case of a canal the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order." We have under this provision for the protection of canals, and the Manchester Ship Canal is on exactly the same footing as any other canal.

Mr. L. SCOTT

There is no canal in this country which carries ships of approximately the same tonnage.

Mr. SHORTT

It is on exactly the same footing as any other canal, and I ask the House to say it shall be under the same conditions as any other canal. It is amply protected; it is protected by the procedure of a special Order. My hon. and learned Friend has shown that the waters of the Manchester Ship Canal have been required, and may probably be again required. They can be given in certain circumstances, but they will not be used when it would be detrimental to navigation, nor will they be refused when it is not. They will be on exactly the same footing as any other canal, and, therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY

I did not understand the Homo Secretary when he said that the Manchester Ship Canal was exactly like any other canal. I came up from Wiltshire this morning, and, looking out of the railway carriage window, I saw a, canal on which there was a barge being drawn by a horse, and further on I saw another barge drawn by another horse ill the same direction, I understood the Manchester Ship Canal allowed ships of many thousand tons burden to proceed under their own steam up to the port of Manchester, and how, then, can that compare with the canal I happened to see this morning, or with another canal I also saw this morning, covered with green slime? Therefore I think that that argument must fall to the ground, and that the Home Secretary on further consideration will agree that I am right in that particular case. Now we come to the case whether or not water should be taken from the Manchester Ship Canal. I am not quite sure whether I am right in my figures, but the Manchester Ship Canal was originally estimated to cost about £10,000,000. Like many other engineering undertakings it cost about double that amount. Indeed, affairs got into such a state that the City of Manchester Corporation had to provide money to finish it. The result, of it has been that many millions more I have been spent. If you are going to take away the water you might as well say that I the whole of the money spent on the canal is to be taken away. The question is, are we to have cheaper electricity and is the Port of Liverpool to revert to its old condition and Manchester merely become a subsidiary market town of Liverpool? This particular Sub-section provides that the water taken shall be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted. How is that going to be done? When you take the water when it flows at a certain height over the wheel, how can you return it at the same level? I do not think the Home Secretary has answered the very clear statement of my hon. and gallant Friend.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes after Eleven o'clock.