HC Deb 09 April 1930 vol 237 cc2297-315

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I invite the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill which provides better safety provisions in connection with reservoirs yet to be constructed in this country. I am hopeful that the Bill will, to-night, receive a Second Reading without serious opposition, and I shall respect the right of other Members by giving them the opportunity to offer some observations upon the principles which I propose very briefly to outline. I begin with the knowledge that this is a very dull and uninteresting subject, but, at the same time, questions of life and death and questions concerning safety of the public are involved in the proposals which I now submit. Indeed, the history behind this Bill has been a tragic succession of grim experiences. It is a Bill to strengthen the law for the protection of the public against disasters arising from the bursting of reservoirs. At the end of 1925 there was a terrible disaster in the Carnarvonshire mountains. The dam of a reservoir burst, a mass of water rushed down upon a village, 16 lives were lost, and very considerable damage was done. A similar occurrence, fortunately with less serious consequences, had occurred not long before in Scotland; and it was then thought desirable to review the position and to consider whether the law in some respects ought not to be changed.

The result of that review was rather disturbing. It appeared that private persons and industrial concerns could construct reservoirs on private property without any special statutory authority or safeguards, and while it is, no doubt, usual to employ engineers with special experience of reservoir construction, this has not always been done. Moreover, even minor works may cause considerable damage and loss of life in the event of their giving way. Secondly, even if the reservoir was properly designed and constructed, it ought not only to be regularly watched, but also to be inspected specially and thoroughly at intervals to see whether the natural and other conditions have altered. This again is the best but not perhaps the invariable practice.

In these circumstances, the late Government decided that a Bill should be prepared, and communications and conferences took place with various members of the engineering profession and representatives of the large water supply undertakers. The proposals were discussed both generally and in some detail, and there appeared to be general agreement that legislation was desirable on the lines embodied in the Bill which was introduced by the late Government. There are two or three particular points on which it is recognised that there is some difference of opinion yet, and these will no doubt be discussed during the Committee stage, but having regard to the consultations mentioned and the marked absence of criticisms received at the Home Office since the Bill was published, I hope the provisions of the Bill will prove substantially non-controversial.

The Bill is designed to ensure that new reservoirs are constructed under the supervision of a civil engineer who is an expert in this particular class of engineering work, and that both new and existing reservoirs are specially and thoroughly inspected from time to time by such a qualified engineer. The normal interval between such inspections would be 10 years. Secondly, the Bill is designed to put members of the public and local authorities who are likely to be affected if a reservoir collapses in a better position to ascertain whether proper precautions have been taken and are being taken, and to bring an alleged failure to do so even before the Courts. Thirdly, the Bill is designed to strengthen the law as to liability to compensate victims of any disaster.

I submit that generally the underlying principle of the Bill is to emphasise and in some respects increase a responsibility which no longer should be denied. It is not proposed to transfer any of the responsibility to a Government Department. This would not only impose on the Department a very difficult task, but would tend to lessen the sense of responsibility of the undertakers, and to that extent would be inconsistent with the object of the Bill itself. Local inhabitants and others interested in houses and other property in the neighbourhood have very meagre facilities for discovering whether the reservoir owners or undertakers have taken proper precautions, and apprehensions of a disaster of this kind, however ill founded, may give rise to considerable public alarm, which might be dispelled if further information as to precautions taken were obtainable. Again, in the case of some of these reservoirs which have been erected under statutory authority, people cannot obtain damages in the event of water escaping and injuring their persons or property, unless they can prove negligence on the part of the undertakers, which is not an easy thing to do. It is true that in a number of cases private Acts authorising the construction of works of this kind have contained a provision preserving the undertakers' common law liability for damage in the event of the reservoir bursting, irrespective of proof of negligence, but this is by no means universal.

I submit that changes in the distribution of population, and in particular of the geographical aspects of our country, have increased the need for a Bill of this kind, and that we ought to prevent disasters in the future of the kind I have aready alluded to. Therefore, in view of the need for greater precautions, and being convinced that there is no party or political capital whatever in these proposals, and that all sides of the House equally are anxious to protect both life and property, I submit this Bill for a Second Reading.

Sir B. PETO

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), I rise not so much to oppose the whole principle underlying this Bill, as that would indeed be difficult after the very engaging speech of the Home Secretary, but in order that we should have adequate debate and the opportunity of pointing out some particulars, underlying the principles on which this Bill is constructed, which render it certainly, in my view, inefficient for the purposes for which it is introduced and undesirable from various points of view. The Home Secretary has pointed out what was the genesis of this Bill. It was, as he said, the disaster which occurred in Wales in respect of a reservoir, a disaster in which 16 people were drowned. That occurred in 1925, and a Bill, after some discussion, but without any adequate opportunity for the great water undertakings of the country to represent their case to the Home Office, was introduced by the late Government. It was in the nature of panic legislation, because while these disasters—and the right hon. Gentleman quoted two—are possible of occurrence, he did not mention any disaster which had occurred through the breakage of any reservoir constructed by any of the great water undertakings of the country.

I rather regret that the Home Secretary did not explain to the House why the Bill that was introduced earlier and that appeared on the Order Paper for a long time, the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Bill, had been withdrawn and another substituted and passed through another place, which only appeared, except for one or two very small verbal alterations, to effect one alteration. I notice that an application to Quarter Sessions is substituted for an application to the Railway and Canal Commission. That is the main difference, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) and I had a Motion on the Paper to reject the earlier Measure for a long time, and our main reason for objecting to this Bill is that in Clause 8 of the old Bill, which is Clause 7 of the present Bill, it says: Where damage or injury is caused by the escape of water from a reservoir constructed after the commencement of this Act under statutory powers, the fact that the reservoir was so constructed shall not exonerate the undertakers from any indictment, action or other proceedings to which they would otherwise have been liable. I ask the House to notice the word "after." There is no question that the present state of the law is not satisfactory, and the British Waterworks Association and the other waterworks organisations of the country do not dispute it. Reservoirs are constructed sometimes under statutory powers, in some cases with special clauses limiting or enforcing the Common Law right of the public against the undertaker, and in fact with very varying provisions as to the liability for damage in the case of failure. That clearly requires some alteration, and there may be room for difference of opinion on the question of whether all statutory water undertakers should not be placed in the same position. But that is not what the Bill proposes to do. It sweeps away one anomaly in order to create another, because the reservoirs constructed prior to the passing of the Bill will have their liabilities under Common Law, or under particular Clauses in the Private Bills under which they have statutory powers for the construction of the reservoirs. Those that are constructed after the Bill will be in a totally different position as to liability to the public.

That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with this question, and there seems to be no good reason for either perpetuating the present anomalous position or of getting into another anomalous position, in which the owners of certain reservoirs will be liable for negligence only, and the owners of certain other reservoirs under this Bill will be liable for any failure of their works. The Municipal Corporations Association and the British Waterworks Association put forward objections to the Home Office as long ago as 1928, and the Bill was actually introduced into the House on 11th June, 1928. Only two of the suggestions which were put forward by those Associations, whose members own by far the greater number of reservoirs in the country, have been incorporated in the earlier Bill, and both those alterations are perpetuated in the present Bill. One of them adds certain words in Clause (2, a), and the other one is a definition as to what is a large reservoir. Both these were minor matters, which clearly ought to be in the Bill, but it is only in respect of these particulars that either this or the late Government have listened to these Associations.

The principal objection which I have to the Bill is Clause 7. That appears to me to involve an important modification in the Common Law applicable to statutory undertakings. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that under the present Common Law all these undertakings have certain liabilities. Clause 308 of the Public Health Act of 1875 says: Where any person sustains any damage by reason of the exercise of any of the powers of this Act in relation to any matter as to which he is not himself in default full compensation shall be paid to such person by the local authority exercising such powers and any dispute as to facts or of the amount of compensation shall be settled by arbitration in manner provided by this Act. 10.0 p.m.

We have already certain Common Law provisions which apply to all undertakers who own these reservoirs. Under the Common Law, undertakers are not responsible for damage caused by the escape of water from the reservoir, if it is constructed under statutory powers, unless they are negligent in the execution of those powers. We shall now have under this Bill two classes of reservoirs—those that were constructed prior to the passing of the Bill, where certain very limited liabilities as to damage under Common Law obtains, and others where these much more extended responsibilities are imposed. I do not think that it is satisfactory to deal with the question in this way.

It does not matter very much to the water companies, because even if they are to construct reservoirs in future with a greater liability for any failure, it will not be possible for them to exercise greater care in the construction, or to employ more eminent engineers than they have done in the past, because they employ the most eminent engineers in the country in the construction of these great works, It is quite clear that what they will have to do is to insure against this new liability. All that will happen is that the insurance companies and the under- writers will get a new and very profitable business, because the Home Secretary has not quoted a single case in which there has been a failure of one of these reservoirs hitherto. They will have to insure, and there will be some premuim quoted, and, whatever it is, it will be very profitable to those who undertake the business.

Mr. KELLY

Why should they go to an insurance company?

Sir B. PETO

I should say that in all cases where a new liability of that kind is put upon anybody, that is the usual procedure. Whatever liability is imposed under this Bill will ultimately be translated into an increase in the water charges. It is a fresh liability and a fresh expense. That is all that it amounts to. I have also grave objection to Clause 2, which provides far inspection of these large reservoirs as defined in the Bill by qualified independent civil engineers. When these water companies construct reservoirs, they employ the very best and most highly qualified engineers obtainable in the country, and it is inconceivable to suppose that any water company constructing a reservoir will not have in their employment an engineer who will be upon the panel as provided in Clause 8, and therefore an engineer qualified to inspect these reservoirs. Therefore, all that Clause 2 does is to provide some more jobs for civil engineers. I will call the attention of the House to the fact that in the proviso under. Clause 2, Sub-section (2) it says: Provided that, if in the case of a reservoir in course of construction at the commencement of this Act the engineer responsible for supervising the construction of the reservoir becomes a qualified civil engineer within the meaning of this Act, this subsection shall apply as if the reservoir had been constructed after the commencement of this Act. That means that if, after the construction of the reservoir, the engineer becomes a qualified engineer, then instead of inspection taking place in three years, as in the case of a reservoir constructed before the commencement of the Act, inspection need only take place after 10 years. Therefore, already, the Bill provides that if the undertaking employs an engineer of a character to become a qualified engineer it does away with the necessity of inspection for seven years. Where an undertaking such as a waterworks employs, as it practically always does, an engineer who will certainly qualify to go upon the panel of inspecting engineers, it is quite unnecessary to employ an outside engineer, of no better qualifications, and with less detailed knowledge of the construction of the reservoir itself, to go round inspecting the other engineer's work.

I have only to put it like that for the House to see that we are not attaining any additional security for people who happen to reside in a valley below a reservoir, but only providing inure fees for civil engineers. I do not object to that, any more than I object to lucrative business being provided for Lloyds underwriters, and for the great insurance companies, which is what is being done under Clause 8. Clause 1 is really no more than a recital of the ordinary procedure followed in the construction of reservoirs. It is, so to speak, mere padding—I do not like to use a harder word—put in to make it appear that the Bill is really doing something, even though it is doing very little, if anything.

For all the reasons I have given, I do not think there is now any justification for the present Government proceeding with the Bill. I can quite well understand why it was introduced two years ago, shortly after this disaster—though I would point out that it did not arise from a water company's undertaking—but it is applicable to every reservoir in the country, no matter how eminent the engineer who was responsible for its construction, and I regard it as a piece of legislation which the Government might well drop. It is an inheritance. I do not suppose it will meet with any serious opposition, but at the same time I have felt bound to put forward these views, which are held by the water companies, with regard to both Clause 2 and Clause 8. Clause 2 is unnecessary and Clause 8 of the original Bill—it is Clause 7 now—only relieves the present anomalous position by making the position still more anomalous, creating an artificial date—"the passing of this Act"—before which there will be one liability and after which there will be another liability. I apologise to the House for the inadequacy of the reasons I have submitted on this technical problem, which would have been better dealt with by a legal Member or one more closely associated with water companies undertakings than I am myself.

Mr. BALFOUR

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have very much pleasure in doing so. I am quite sure that the object which the promoters of the Bill seek to achieve would be approved in all quarters of the House as a right and proper object, because all would desire to protect people from any calamity arising from the bursting of a dam or the overflowing of water in such quantities as to cause disaster; but when I find a Bill framed in this manner and containing Clauses which, from the point of view of achieving the object of the promoters, are quite unnecessary, I must support the Amendment and say that I totally disagree with the Bill. I say without the slightest reservation that I will give whole-hearted support to a Measure which will give the fullest possible protection against the possibility of such calamity as the Government desire to prevent, but this Bill strikes me as using a steam hammer to crack a nut—to use an old illustration. While it is our duty to protect people against disaster, we have an equal duty, perhaps even a greater duty, to see that it is not done in a manner which is troublesome, irritating and unnecessary to the proprietors of these undertakings.

Unless it is the desire of the Government to have an army of unnecessary officials—and I feel certain that is not their intention—they would be well advised to introduce a new Bill aimed directly at the object they have in view. This Bill might apply to all the canals in the country. All, or nearly all, of our canals are, in parts, at a level higher than that of the ground immediately adjoining—I think those are the words of the Bill; and the Measure also affects a whole mass of subsidiary reservoirs which could under no circumstances be a menace to anybody. It refers, also, to great dams built in a manner which everyone knows can never be a menace—it does not matter whether we inspect them or not; if any disaster arises from them, it will be due to some act of God, some flood, which no prior inspection would disclose. I would support the most rigorous Measure to make certain that these works are properly constructed at the time they are built, but, once they are constructed then let inspection be limited to the special cases where there is some reasonable cause to apprehend danger.

This Measure will not protect the public against disaster. In the case of the Dolgarrog Dam, the damage was done in the construction originally, and I question whether if this Bill had been in operation at the time we should have been protected against that disaster. It was built by one of the most eminent firms of engineers, whose certificate as to its construction would have been accepted by everybody. The damage was done when that reservoir was constructed, and no amount of inspection would have disclosed the danger except that there might have been some apprehension on the part of the proprietors prior to the flooding. This was known, and it did not require an inspection by an outside authority. Does anybody suggest that, so far as the dams of the Metropolitan Water Board are concerned, they will be made more safe by having a specially appointed inspector. It is to remove all unnecessary work of that kind that I second this Amendment. I do so in no spirit of hostility whatever to the real object of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I fail to understand the frivolous manner adopted by hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not frivolous!"] I think I am quite right in interpreting the interruptions of hon. Members as frivolous.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

The hon. Member said he was not hostile to the Bill.

Mr. BALFOUR

I am not hostile to any Bill which would be a definite guarantee against any disaster overtaking the people due to the construction of a dangerous dam. We have a duty in the House to see that in remedying an evil we do not put on the Statute Book and perpetuate in our Measures things which are unnecessary, troublesome, and expensive. I am not speaking on behalf of the people engaged in these things, but on behalf of the people who ultimately have to pay, namely, the actual consumers.

I earnestly appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously to consider this matter, because in the past hon. Members have had an anxious regard to make sure that when they were remedying an evil they were not at the same time trampling upon the liberties of the sub- ject. In the House of Commons we must have regard, in season and out of season, when remedying an evil, to see that we are not perpetuating an even greater and more lasting evil than that which we seek to remedy. I should be in favour of the introduction of a simple, clear-cut Bill providing that in the construction of dams you should make sure that they are safe when you build them, but we should not worry every undertaking throughout the country which has some minor dam by a whole body of inspectors. You should strike at the root of the evil—you may embarrass me in in any work I might construct—but do not restrict the liberty of the subject by passing a totally unnecessary Measure.

Major OWEN

I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I feel that I am to some extent personally responsible for the Bill, and I would remind the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) of the circumstances which brought the Bill into existence. The hon. Member for Barnstaple referred to it as a piece of panic legislation, but I would remind him that the calamity at Dolgarrog occurred as long ago as the 2nd November, 1925. As the representative of the constituency in which the accident occurred, I immediately brought the matter before this House, and to my amazement, and the amazement of the House, I found that there was no Government Department which had any responsibility whatsoever in the matter. A coroner's inquiry was held, and what was the result? It was definitely shown that there had been culpable negligence on the part of somebody, but no one has ever been brought to book for that terrible calamity; no one has been punished; the fault has not been brought home to any individual or any group of individuals.

The position to-day is exactly the same as it was at the time when that accident occurred; nothing has been done. As the representative of that area, I asked the then Home Secretary to hold a public inquiry, but he had to admit on the Floor of the House of Commons that he had not the power to order such an inquiry. That there were only 16 lives lost was simply due to a fortuitous circumstance. Most of the inhabitants of the village happened to be in a cinema that night. Had they been in their own homes the number of people who would have lost their lives in that calamity would have been far greater than it was.

After all, the position is not one that can be treated so lightly as the two hon. Members who have just spoken have treated it. They tried to impress the House with the fact that it is going to cost certain authorities a certain amount of money in the way of inspection now and again; but what has this enormous calamity cost the county of Carnarvonshire? Have the hon. Members taken into consideration the fact that to-day the county council of Carnarvonshire has not yet paid for the damage done by that accident? That is a far greater sum than any authority would ever be called upon to pay in connection with the inspection of reservoirs all over the country. In addition to that, what is the position of people living in the same county, where there are two other reservoirs of a similar character? There was a sense of panic throughout the whole county for a very long period, and that sense of panic still remains.

The hon. Member for Hampstead said that the cause of this accident could not have been detected by inspection. It could have been detected by inspection. The report of the engineers appointed by the company itself shows quite clearly that, as the hon. Member said the construction was defective in the first instance, that the retaining wall had only gone down in several places a few inches into the solid clay, whereas according to the specification it should have gone down six feet. The accident was not due to the dam bursting. The superstructure was all right, but the basis of the whole retaining wall was on unsound material. That was the whole reason for the accident. Had the dam been inspected during construction, it would have been possible to prevent the putting in of the kind of work which was put in in that dam.

Mr. BALFOUR

I made it quite clear that that is the right thing to do. I said, let these things be inspected at the time of construction, but, having done that, do not impose all these other burdens which are unnecessary.

Sir B. PETO

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that under Clause 2 all that is provided is inspection either within three years of the commencement of the Act or, if it is after the commencement of the Act, within 10 years of the date of the preliminary certificate?

Major OWEN

I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. Baronet on that point. In the case of reservoirs that are already in existence, it would be a relief to a very large number of people living in the neighbourhood if they had an inspection within less than three years. The quarrel I have with the Bill is that the inspection is delayed for a period of three years We know perfectly well that, with an extra amount of rainfall, the retaining walls are not really safe. I obtained the First Reading of a Bill as long ago as December, 1926, but up to now nothing has been done. Time and again I put questions to the Home Secretary in the last Administration with regard to this. Finally, I was put off with a promise that a Bill would be brought in by the Government itself.

The Bill that I introduced avoided the difficulties the hon. Member for Hampstead has in mind. I am anxious that this Bill should have a Second Reading. It can be changed, if necessary, in Committee, but it is really a matter of essential importance for the safety of a large number of people. After all, if we are going to develop our hydroelectric power, a good many more of these dams will be put up all over the countryside. In addition to that, we had a, severe lesson last summer in the shortage of water, and public bodies will have to undertake works of that kind pretty soon in order to secure a sufficient supply for our big population. It is essential, therefore, that a Bill of this kind should be put upon the Statute Book as soon as possible. I welcome the fact that the Government have saved time by introducing it in another place and that a great deal of the difficulties and weaknesses of the Bill have already been removed.

Dr. FORGAN

In the last Parliament a discussion took place on the disaster that occurred in the West of Scotland, caused by the bursting of a reservoir of considerably less than the 5,000,000 gallon limit mentioned in this Bill. At a later stage the Home Secretary might be prepared to consider the desirability of bringing within the provisions of the Bill smaller reservoirs, because a number of them in the past have led to loss of life.

Commander SOUTHBY

I am sure the House is in agreement in deploring the terrible accidents that have been referred to, but it is essential that we should not legislate for particular occurrences, but for the whole question of reservoirs and their safety as a general matter. I cannot help thinking that there are difficulties in this Bill to which this House should pay some attention. The representative body—the British Waterworks Association Executive Committee—are not against a Bill to safeguard waterworks and the people in the country, but they are calling attention to certain points in this Bill which they think are unnecessary. The adequate protection of the people or the adequate supervision or inspection of waterworks is an essential which the whole House agrees should be properly carried out. But in Clause 2 of the new Bill, although it differs in one slight material point from the original Bill, provision is made for periodical inspection by an engineer who is not an engineer of the company.

I would suggest that where a company has a qualified skilled engineer, it is unnecessary that an outside independent engineer should come in to inspect a reservoir under the charge of a man who is already understood to be fully qualified, and who can pass any examination which the Government may think is necessary and be on a panel approved by them. Under the original Bill as it was drafted, the examination was to take place periodically by an independent engineer alone. In the Bill as it has come down from another place, the difficulty has been met halfway by saying that the independent engineer is to act in conjunction with the resident engineer of the undertaking.

I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be better, and it would meet the wishes of the water companies, who act under Statute, and who are only too anxious in this case to meet the wishes of the Government, in order to ensure safety that this inspection should be left to the qualified resident engineer of the company. It is not necessary to duplicate officials who have to look after these undertakings. I agree that you should have your inspections as often as possible in order to provide for safety. I think that an inspection after a 10 years' interval is probably much too long a period for safety as regards a reservoir.

There is another point to which reference was made in the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Veto). It relates to Clause 7, which only applies to reservoirs constructed after the passage of the Bill. As my hon. Friend pointed out, in Common Law, as it stands at present, water undertakers are not responsible for damage when the reservoir was constructed under Statute unless negligence in the execution of their powers can be proved. I really do not see why there should be any special modification as far as reservoirs constructed after the passage of this Act are concerned. I do not see what are the special grounds for exempting undertakings from the existing Common Law. We should avoid burdening this particular Bill with things which will not apply to all reservoirs, but only to those reservoirs constructed after the passage of the Act.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take notice of these two particular points. I have no desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, because I believe it is necessary to have suitable legislation. At the same time one should safeguard the position of the existing companies which operate under a Statute, and who are only too anxious to carry out their duties to the public as efficiently as possible. I think that if those two points could be met, the Bill would have very little opposition amongst the water undertakers of the country.

Mr. REMER

My object in rising is to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon this Measure and to regret that my two hon. Friends and I are on this occasion found in disagreement. I hope that they will not delay the passage of this Bill, because I am satisfied that it is a very vital and necessary Bill. The whole tenor of their remarks has been that the water undertakings of this country are safe. The information which I have is to the contrary, and that there are at the present time several water undertakings about which eminent people have the gravest doubts as to whether they are safe.

I can give concrete evidence on this question from my own constituency. Very recently, the Macclesfield Corporation completed a new reservoir, which was opened this year. They had been receiving their water supply for the Borough of Macclesfield from an old reservoir which had been in operation. since, I think, the year 1845. When the new reservoir was complete they had an inspection made of the old reservoir, and it was discovered that the old reservoir was unsafe and that an important village or locality, which is rather a large place, situated at the foot of that reservoir had for the last 20 years at least been living in the shadow of death. Here is a reservoir which, more or less by accident, was found to be unsafe. Had there been a periodical examination, such as is proposed in this Bill, there would have been prevented the great danger which, happily, has been averted.

The hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen) has had a little controversy with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) with respect to the Dolgarrog reservoir. It is clear that if an inspection had taken place of that reservoir at the time and the danger had been discovered, the reservoir could have been emptied and the danger removed. It is very easy to say that the borough water engineers are thoroughly competent to deal with these matters, and I have no doubt that they are, but the water engineer in charge of a reservoir as his everyday job looks after the reservoir and not at the vital points so much as a man coming into inspect it with the deliberate object of seeing to its safety. From all these points of view the Bill is most desirable. It may require amendment in Committee, but I submit that it is a Bill that requires to be passed into law as speedily as possible.

Major LLEWELLIN

I do not rise to suggest that this Bill should not be read a Second time, but I desire to draw attention to one or two points. In Clause 5 it is proposed to allow any appropriate person or any county council or local body to apply to the court of quarter session and that court on such application may make such order in relation to the reservoir as seems to them to be required in the interests of safety. I am not saying that a court of quarter sessions is not a good court, but when you are giving such tremendous power to a court, I think you should give a right of appeal from its decision. Only if a case is stated is there the right of going to the High Court; under this Bill there is no right of appeal on a point of law. In giving such powers to a court of law there should also be some right of appeal. Probably this Bill will go to a Committee upstairs, where some of us will not be able to raise these particular points. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will bear that point in mind and, if possible, give some right of appeal in these cases. The court might order the whole of a reservoir to be closed, which would be dreadful from the point of view of those who get their water from it. Large areas may have their water supply cut off by reason of the order that is made. I think Sub-section (3) of Clause 4 should be more clearly defined. It says: If the undertakers contravene or fail to comply with the provisions of this Section they shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds. There should be an adequate time limit within which to comply with these provisions, after which it shall be an offence against the criminal law of this country. I agree with Clause 7 of the Bill, and I see good reasons why it should only affect undertakings that are constructed after the passing of this Bill. Retrospective legislation should be avoided unless it is absolutely necessary. The only other point is with regard to the question of the qualified independent civil engineer. I do not think an inspection by such an engineer is necessary in a case where the water undertaking can prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that they have such an engineer themselves. For instance, the Metropolitan Water Board, obviously, has such an engineer, probably far better qualified than any ordinary civil engineer, and in such a case as that he should be allowed to make these inspections and reports as to the condition of the reservoir. Where the water company has already a fully qualified man his inspection should be sufficient. It is only a source of irritation and a certain amount of unneces- sary expense to call in an independent civil engineer, and where the Home Secretary is convinced that the engineer in charge is a fully qualified person I think he should be allowed to make these inspections without calling in an independent civil engineer.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I wsh to ask a question with regard to Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. If a local authority or other authority is going to enlarge a reservoir I understand that it is able to use its own engineer for the purpose of the enlargement and that his certificate will be sufficient. I realise that in many cases that is adequate, particularly so in the case of some of the larger authorities or of an authority which employs an engineer with great knowledge of local conditions and the structure of the reservoir itself. But I ask the Home Secretary to look into the matter carefully, and to see that the safeguards are adequate. My next point relates to Clause 8, which deals with the panel of engineers. 1 would like to know approximately how many engineers it is proposed to put on that panel. I realise that in work of this kind it is necessary to have properly qualified men, but on the other hand I do not want to see this panel too small or so closely rigged round with safeguards as to prevent men getting on to it. It does not necessarily follow that the man who can pass the best examinations is best qualified for such a panel. A thoroughly sound and experienced man is, of course, needed.

I remember the case of a reservoir, which was seemingly perfect in every possible way, but there was a fault in the subsoil a considerable distance from the reservoir. Only a practical man with local knowledge could have known of that particular condition. That side of the matter should be considered in choosing the panel. There is a further and most important point in reference to large electrical developments with large reservoirs for supplying power. It is essential that in these cases there should be proper construction and inspection. Clause 11 has been worrying me very much. I do not see anyone representing Scotland on the Frant Bench, but would one of the legal authorities whom I see present explain exactly what is meant by Sub-section (3) of this Clause, which says: Any expenses incurred under this Act … shall be defrayed out of such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine. I entirely fail to see how the Council can determine under this Act anything except equal proportions. I would like an explanation of these words which seem peculiarly muddled and vague. I understand the Government are rather apt to put this Bill on to the shoulders of their predecessors, but I am very much inclined to think their predecessors would never have put in a phrase so vague and incapable of definition. The House is entitled to have this and other points which have been raised by hon. Members cleared up.

Mr. CLYNES

I should like to acknowledge thankfully the attitude of mind which hon. Members have shown towards the principles of this Bill. I purposely avoided referring to the matters of detail covered in the Clauses. We are indebted to hon. Members who have taken part in this short Debate for having greatly assisted us at the Home Office by what they have said and enabling us the better to prepare for the Committee stage. I can assure the House that when that stage is reached, these suggestions—purely Committee points, of course—will be dealt with in the most broad-minded manner by those who have to deal with the Bill at that stage.

Sir B. PETO

In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Forward to