CLAUSE 1—(Supply of water in bulk). (Hansard, 13 April 1934)

§ Mr. CHORLTON
I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, at the end, to insert: for the purpose of this proviso the expressions 'railway company' and 'railway committee' shall include the London Passenger Transport Board.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)
We have no objection to this Amendment, which is to give the London Passenger Transport Board the same protection as is enjoyed by the other railway companies.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Is there any particular reason why these words were not put in the Clause before? It seems to be rather curious that it should be left until the very last minute to insert this Amendment. Is the reason that the Bill was produced in some Department before the London Passenger Transport Bill was carried?

§ Mr. CHORLTON
The reason is that the particular authority concerned was not aware at the time that the Bill might possibly touch its property. These words are inserted merely as a precaution.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
It is purely a precautionary measure, but it is rather unsatisfactory not to have the Amendment on the Paper.

§ Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE
I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out "a local Act", and to insert: any Act of Parliament other than this Act or under any Order confirmed by Parliament. I move this Amendment on behalf of the Thames Conservancy Board. It is a manuscript Amendment because we did not realise that the Bill was coming on to-day. The proviso was inserted in another place at the instance of the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board, Lord Desborough. The words which we propose in the Amendment are to be found in Clause 3, page 3, lines 34, 35 and 36.

§ Mr. REA
I do not wish to raise any objection to the Bill, but I am entitled to make a protest against the way in which these manuscript Amendments are being handed in at the last moment, on a Bill which we have agreed to allow to go through without discussion. It is taking an unfair advantage of the Committee and of the usual courtesies of a Friday that we should be asked to pass manuscript Amendments which we have 664 not had an opportunity of considering. I do not say it is the case with this Amendment, but other manuscript Amendments might have a bearing far more formidable than appears on the surface and yet we are asked to treat this as a non-controversial Bill.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken. This Bill comes from another place and there have been many opportunities of putting Amendments on the Paper. It is an abuse of Friday's procedure to take the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind, which is really very complicated, and to insert in it various manuscript Amendments which are of a technical character. I am not criticising the Bill or the Amendment, but I do join in the protest of the hon. Member. The Amendment refers to an Order confirmed by Parliament. That makes it very technical for the Clause as it stands refers to "a local Act." There was a Bill which passed its Second Reading yesterday. In that there was reference to Orders confirmed by Parliament. I am not sure whether some difficulty might not be caused. These words are sprung on us. When Amendments are thrust upon us in this way it is impossible to tell how the matter stands and I should not like to see the Government get into any difficulties in this matter. I respectively warn them that difficulties may arise as between these two Measures. When Committee proceedings are gone through in a hurried way and when we have no great legal light to help and guide us in these matters, accidents may happen and an awkward position may be created which the Government would have to put right later. I repeat that it is a little rough on the House of Commons that we should have these proposals brought before us in this way.

§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
On the point of principle may I explain to the hon. Member that the Bill which received its Second Reading yesterday was a Bill of a temporary nature and any Order which is made under that Bill will last only for six months. This Bill, however, is of a permanent character and that is the distinction between the two Measures. On the point as to the privileges of Private 665 Members I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member. I would prefer if this Amendment were withdrawn and put down for the Report stage so as to enable the hon. Member and everybody else who wishes to do so to look into it. The essence of this Bill is that it should be non-controversial and the course which I suggest would enable the points mentioned by the hon. Member to be weighed and considered. I make that friendly suggestion to the mover of the Amendment.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
The hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is intended to be permanent and that the Measure passed yesterday is only temporary but I would like him to go into the question of whether regulations under this Bill may not be over-ruled by Orders under the other Bill or vice versa. I think it a wise suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn and taken on the Report stage and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that, speaking on behalf of the Government, he has stood up for the rights of Private Members instead of seeking to withdraw any of those rights.

§ Mr. A. SOMERVILLE
I take it that there will be a Report stage as an Amendment has already been moved and accepted. In that case I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his suggestion and I am willing to adopt it. I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Members opposite who have spoken with regard to manuscript Amendments. I strongly object to them myself and I appreciate the benevolent, if somewhat interrogatory attitude of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). This is practically only a drafting Amendment and the words which it proposes to insert here, appear already elsewhere in the Bill. I am willing, however, to withdraw the Amendment now and to put it down on Report.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
May we have an explanation of the Clause as it stands?

§ Mr. CHORLTON
I shall be pleased to give an explanation although I thought the Bill was of such a simple nature that it did not require any explanation and that anything which I might say of that nature would be redundant. The Bill is for the one purpose of allowing a water authority which is in a position to do so to supply water in bulk to another authority in whose area there is a shortage and it provides the means whereby that can be done. In a particular case one company may have a good supply of water and it may be close to a district in which there is a severe shortage. At present such & company would have no power to supply water outside its statutory limits. The Bill would enable such a company to supply water in bulk, but only in bulk, to the other authority. The distribution would be by the undertakers taking the supply. Certain safeguards have been introduced so that the interests of all parties affected will be protected.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Clause 1 (4) contains a proviso with regard to undertakers opening or breaking-up streets. I wish to know how far that power extends. In certain parts of the country we have great trouble at present because different Departments such as the Post Office and the Ministry of Transport and others come along at various times to execute street works. Does this proviso mean that we are to have an unlimited breaking up of streets by these undertakers? I observe also that the Bill refers to railway companies but I do not think we have had any assurance yet that the railway companies are agreed on this point and I hold that great industrial institutions, such as the railways, should be consulted on these matters. We should be assured that there is nothing in the Measure overriding their powers.
Then there is the question of principle as to whether it is advisable that a local authority which has too much water should be allowed to supply another authority which has too little. I personally am in favour of it but I would like to hear the Government's official opinion as to whether the methods proposed here are the right methods or not. I know of an instance in which one authority has a water difficulty while a neighbouring authority has plenty of water and 667 I wish to know whether it will be possible to co-ordinate water schemes in a case like that. Obviously the Ministry of Health is keenly interested in such a Bill as this if it is going to help in any way to deal with the water difficulty and we are entitled to know whether or not the Government are behind the Measure and are giving it their goodwill. Further, I should like to have the official Government view as to whether this will help to get cheaper water in this country.

§ Mr. CHORLTON
With reference to the breaking-up of roads, if you are going to make a connection between one authority's mains and those of another, that will mean some sort of disturbance, but security is provided that there shall be the consent of the persons in control of the street or bridge. When the Bill was going through the other House, it was attempted to make it non-contentious, and I felt that these were only drafting Amendments and did not bring in any risks or infringe any rights. With regard to the second point, the railway companies have been consulted, and this is their own wording. With regard to the third point, I believe it will mean cheaper water being provided. Where you are going to pool your resources in this sense and give power to a company to distribute over a larger area, I think it will mean cheaper water.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
May I thank my hon. Friend most sincerely for the help that he has given to the Committee on this matter? I would now appeal to the Government to show us the same courtesy. This is a big Bill, which is giving very big powers throughout the country, and are we to be refused any advice on it by the Government? Are they giving up their position? Is there no Opposition which will take it on? I should like to know if the Government are really in sympathy with the Bill or what their attitude is.

§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government strongly approve of the principle of this Bill. If there is one power that is now lacking, it is the provision of water outside one's own area. Some statutory undertakings 668 have got it in their own Acts, but not all, and this Bill promotes the cheaper supply of water, which can well be given if statutory effect is given to this simple provision, whereby statutory undertakings can supply outside their own area, subject always to the consent of the Minister of Health and to amicable agreements all round. The Government does bless the Bill.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I thank my hon. Friend for his explanation, because it is just as well that we should know that the Government are watching these matters. It is essential that the Government should be active and doing a great deal in this connection.