HC Deb 20 April 1934 vol 288 cc1297-9

12.32 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON

I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, after "committee, to insert: or crosses over or under a canal or inland navigation maintained by a navigation authority. This Amendment is similar to one that came up in Committee and seeks in this respect to put a navigation authority in the same category as a railway company. It may be desired to connect up for the purpose of conveying water, and in so doing canal property may be crossed or affected in some way, and it is reasonable that the Amendment should be inserted.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

I beg to second the Amendment. It is rather surprising that this provision was not made in the original draft of the Bill. When we consider the importance of canals and the large number of bridges, one realises the necessity of this Amendment and the following Amendments.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I should like to know how far this Amendment goes, because we have other navigation authorities in addition to navigation authorities concerned with canals. What is the position so far as the River Thames is concerned? Does the Amendment cover the Thames? At the present time the Thames is controlled by the Thames Conservancy. It is important that this matter should be made clear. I represent a constituency which is bounded on one side by a river which is partly-tidal and partly not, and there is navigation control over that river. It may be necessary, not in that particular case but in some case of a similar kind, that powers should be given exactly similar to those given in this Amendment with regard to crossing over or under a canal. Perhaps the Ministry of Health will be able to clear up this point, because they have an efficient Parliamentary Secretary, more or less. It is essential when we are dealing with an Amendment of this kind that we should be absolutely certain that all the cases are covered.

Mr. CHORLTON

This Amendment deals with special conditions. In general, statutory water undertakers may exercise their powers under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, relating to the breaking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes, but when it comes to a question of dealing with railway bridges and canal bridges, if there is any dispute or difference it is provided that such disputes shall be referred to the arbitration of an engineer. It is really an engineering provision for a very special occasion. Other matters are taken care of in the earlier part of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 26, after "committee," insert "or navigation authority."

In line 27, leave out "and," and insert "or."

In line 29, after "committee," insert "or navigation authority."

In line 35, after "committee," insert "or authority."

In line 38, after "committee," insert "or authority."

In line 41, after "committee," insert "or authority."—[Mr. Chorlton.]

Mr. CHORLTON

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, after "Passenger" to insert "Transport."

This Amendment is necessary owing to an error in the drafting of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, 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 moved this as a manuscript Amendment in the Committee stage, but the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) with his righteous zeal objected. As I received an assurance from the Government that they would consider the matter, I withdrew it. In another place an Amendment was moved on behalf of the Thames Conservancy Board because of the fact that the words "a local Act" might possibly not include Provisional Orders sanctioned by Parliament, and consequently my Amendment provides that they should be omitted and that the words of the Amendment should be substituted.

Amendment agreed to.