HC Deb 30 April 1934 vol 289 cc57-71

4.40 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE

I beg to move, in page 13, line 26, at the end, to insert : and, where the applicants are a local authority empowered by a local Act or an order Confirmed by Parliament to supply water, or a company, board, or persons so empowered, and the application is for an order authorising the taking of water from a source, or for the suspension or modification of a restriction or obligation as respects the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water, the applicants shall, in addition, cause a notice of the application to be published in the 'London Gazette'. The object of this Amendment is to remedy what was felt during the Committee stage to be a weakness of the Bill, namely, that, although provision was made in the Schedule of the Bill for notifying other water undertakers when a water undertaker applies to the Minister for an Order and for publishing a notice of the application in the newspaper circulating within the area of supply of the applicant, it might well happen that certain big interests, such as some of the large navigation authorities or catchment boards, might neither receive direct notice in writing nor read the local newspaper, covering the area concerned. It was pointed out that it would be advisable to put in a provision whereby, in certain circumstances, publication in the "London Gazette" should be essential. There are two conditions in this Amendment. The first says—paraphrasing it—that all big undertakers, that is to say undertakers that have powers from an Act of Parliament, should publish in the "London Gazette" when applying for Orders; secondly, that they should do so only in respect of certain applications— the taking of water from a source, or for the suspension or modification of a restriction or obligation as respects the taking of water from a source or the discharge of compensation water. The three kinds of application in respect of which the amendment is proposed are those that might most likely escape their notice, and therefore it was considered necessary to put this in, and not to put in those other categories of restriction of user upon a limited class of consumers, who of course get notice in the local Press in addition to the notice they receive direct in writing from the water undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made : In page 15, line 7, leave out "this," and insert "the last foregoing."—[Mr. Shakespeare.]

4.42 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG

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

The House will be interested to receive information of the position to date of the water supplies of the country in relation to the recent rainfall. It might be supposed that there had been a substantial change in the situation since the Measure was introduced, but I am sorry to say that, although there has been a welcome change, it has not been so substantial as to make the Measure unnecessary. The rainfall in the course of the last few weeks has been good, but it has not been enough to remove the necessity for such Measures as are contemplated in the Bill. The House will remember that I claimed on Second Reading that what fixed the time for the introduction of the Bill was that we had arrived at the point at which if we had no more than normal rains they would not relieve us from the emergency measures. We have since then had rains, but certainly no more than normal rains, and we should have to have abnormal rains in order to relieve us from the necessity for the emergency measures.

I have asked for returns from a number of the worst places in order that I might inform the House how matters stand there at the present time. I have received returns from nine of the places where the difficulties were greatest, and in only one place has there been such a large increase as to put a new face upon the situation. In another there has been a substantial improvement; in six places there has been only a slight improvement or a mere maintenance of the original position when the Bill was introduced, and in one place the situation, in spite of the rain, has become worse. That shows how far-reaching the problem is. Hon. Members will have observed some very well-informed and interesting reports from various areas published in the "Times" this morning, from which it appears that there is the assurance of relief from only one area, Northumberland and Durham. The position in other parts of the country is less satisfactory. We get such reports as, from Manchester, "little material change; position still regarded with some anxiety;" from Liverpool, "Rains, while very welcome, have done little or nothing to lighten the anxiety;" and so on, from other places. The general situation is that, as I have said, although there is a welcome return to normal rains, the arrears in the water reserves are not yet made good sufficiently to give us any assurance that we shall be able to do without the emergency measures contained in this Bill.

It is interesting to observe what kind of opposition it has received. It has received only, what I might call very halfhearted opposition from the official Opposition. They appear to me to have been in the difficulty that they have not been able to make up their minds between two quite incompatible arguments—the one, that the Bill was such a useless Measure that it ought to be rejected altogether, and the other, that it was such a useful Measure that it ought to be made permanent. Either of those lines of argument would have been intelligible, but what was completely unintelligible was that the conclusion at which they arrived was that it was such a useless Measure that it ought to be made permanent That line of criticism is one which I find it very difficult to meet. I prefer their conclusion to their premiss. Their conclusion is that it is a useful Measure. It is a useful Measure, and it has been very much improved by the consideration which it has received, and for which I should like to express my gratitude, from those with the most knowledge of the working of the water undertakings of the country.

I have awaited with impatience the fulfilment of the promises of practical suggestions for improvements in the Measure which were contained in the vote of censure which was moved against the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hung upon the words of the Opposition in Committee for any practical suggestion for the strengthening of the Measure, but nothing at all of that kind was forthcoming. All that we have received is vague generalisation as to national schemes. Every possible measure for improving the permanent water supply of the country on the largest possible scale will deserve close attention, and will receive close attention, in order that such improvement may be secured, but all that is absolutely without bearing upon the emergency measures for dealing with the present crisis, and I think that the practical conclusion of all those who are best qualified to form a judgment, both in this House and outside, is that the measures included in this Bill represent what can be done, all that can be done, and nothing more than can be done, to relieve the country from the unfortunate effects of the exceptional shortage of water. We must still look to the country as a whole for its co-operation in protecting itself against the evil consequences of the drought.

That question has two aspects. In the first place, we look to the water undertakers of the country to take time by the forelock—to consider their position well in advance, to consider well in advance what alleviating measures can be taken with the assistance of the Bill, and to put those measures into force well in advance, with the assistance of the Ministry, if necessary, by Orders under the Bill, with a view to protecting the public against the consequences of the drought. The second aspect is with regard to the general public, and I think it should be said on this occasion that nothing has occurred to weaken the gravity of the appeal which was made to the general public on the Second Reading of the Bill to assist in their own protection against the consequences of the drought, by exercising care and moderation in their use of water. All that can be done will be done under the powers of the Bill to make the water supply of the country go as far as it can be made to go, but as much can be done by the voluntary assistance of the public, in regard to moderation of use and the prevention of waste, as can be done by the exercise of legal powers. We sincerely hope that some change in the weather situation may occur which will make it unnecessary to exercise the stronger powers of the Bill. A plentiful rainfall may yet avoid that necessity, but, if no plentiful and abnormal rainfall comes, it may be necessary to exercise those powers in sufficient time and with sufficient foresight to make sure that there shall be no hardship owing to lack of prevision. I think we can congratulate ourselves, as the Measure now leaves us, that the House of Commons, both here and in Committee, has vindicated its own efficiency and power to deal in a prompt and businesslike manner with a national emergency.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD

Before I follow the details of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I ought to remind the House about a serious step which has been taken this afternoon, and of what is now in Clause 11 of the Bill. It is a little unfortunate that all our Scottish colleagues are not here, but this afternoon we have passed a Clause which will go from here to another place, which probably will not be amended in another place, which will become the law of the land, and of which we have not had an intelligible explanation from Members of the Government. When I think of the implications of Clause 11 and its application to Scotland, I tremble to think of what may be the fate of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, who were both absent, and had to rely upon a much more feeble reed than themselves, namely, the Minister of Health, to explain what the Clause was all about. We are passing from the Bill without any adequate explanation of its application to the Northern part of Great Britain, and I feel sure that Scottish Members in all quarters of the House will deplore the fact that they have not had the kind of explanation that they ought to have had so far as the Bill affects them.

The right hon. Gentleman has complained that Providence has not yet been kind enough to him—that the recent rainfall is only about the average rainfall for this time of the year. During the past 12 months or so, we have had only two-thirds of the average annual rainfall of the last generation, and it was not to be expected, unless the whole of this country were washed below the waters of the North Sea, that sufficient rain could possibly have fallen since the time when the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a Bill to deal with the problem which now confronts us. I am glad to think that he is now sharing my view as to the gravity of the situation. Just before Christmas, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), the right hon. Gentleman said that he was keeping a close watch on the position, and that, though there was need for economy in the use of water because of the very exceptional shortage of rain, there was no ground for general alarm; and, much later than that, the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking in the House, tried to calm all the fears of hon. Members in the Chamber by saying that the situation really was not very bad at all. Since this Bill was introduced it has been clear from the speeches of the Minister that the Government are in a panic because the situation is a serious situation, and now, after the time that has elapsed since the Second Reading of the Bill—an unnecessarily long time, perhaps—the right hon. Gentleman is still warning us to-day about the seriousness of the situation.

He now says that our opposition has been half-hearted. Our opposition has not been half-hearted at all. I made it perfectly clear in my speech on the Second Reading, and other speeches in the House and in Committee made it clear, that we had no objection to the proposals of the Bill. Indeed, we have said that we think these proposals are essential, and that these powers ought to be given to the Minister, not temporarily, but permanently. Our objection to the Bill was not that it did not do something, but was that it was the result of a false diagnosis of the situation. This is a much larger problem than the right hon. Gentleman had visualised. He tries now, on the Third Reading, to put us on the horns of a dilemma, and to make us look absurd. He says that we think the Bill is useless, but do not like to reject it; he says that we think the Bill is useful, and therefore we want to render it permanent; and then, by some strange process of logic, he arrives at the position that our real view is that the Bill is useless, but that it should be made permanent. It has been suggested to me—it is not a thought of my own—that that perhaps is the best justification for the National Government—that it is useless, but wishes to make itself permanent. We have never said that the Government is useless; far from it; we have said that this Bill, within its limited range of vision, is useful, and, in so far as it confers powers which past experience has shown to be necessary to the Minister and to water undertakers those powers ought to be made permanent.

The position of the Minister is that he is prepared to go on living from crisis to crisis. Apparently he has not yet appreciated that the nation is faced with a serious water problem, of which this drought is but the most recent example. The problem has been emphasised from these benches more than once. Because of the building of new houses, and the enlarging and expanding consumption of water by people, the problem will become more and more severe every time there is a drought, and it seems to me to be illogical that the Minister should have taken powers in Clause 3 of the Bill to authorise the taking of water for an indefinite period and the purchase of land, and yet, while taking those more or less permanent powers in one Clause, should have confined the operation of the Bill to a very limited period.

The Bill is really a very shabby attempt, and a second attempt, to deal with the water problem during the present Session. I said on the Second Reading of the second Bill that this was the second bite at the cherry, and that the right hon. Gentleman had still not eaten the whole of the cherry, because he had left the larger part of the problem still unsettled. He admits now that the crisis will continue during the coming year unless there are abnormal rains. I say, with some knowledge of the problem, that, if you have abnormal rains, the crisis will still be with you in certain areas. Moreover, the crisis has been with us for almost a year. The Bill is too late to prevent the worst results which have come from the drought of the last 12 months, however soon it gets on the Statute Book. If that be so, and if we cannot rely on the kindliness of Providence to supply us regularly with water, surely the Bill ought to have been of a more permanent nature.

The right hon. Gentleman is still hoping for rain. His hopes so far have not been realised, but, while he is hoping for rain, the situation is not getting better, and he (must know that he is left, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, with what is really the major problem to-day, the problem that I have put to the House on more occasions than one. The Bill, as we have it now, with all the Amendments, which the right hon. Gentleman has so willingly accepted from his side of the House, does nothing whatever to deal with the root problem of water supply, which is the fact that the present areas of collection and supply are too small. The right hon. Gentleman ignores that. He has taken important powers—I am glad that he has them, and I should like him to keep them—but still he has not touched—Hon. Members may bring my words up against me if I am wrong—what in the next five years is going to be a grave national problem, the problem of the co-ordination of our national water resources under larger authorities than we possess to-day, authorities which shall have executive power with a sufficiently large administrative skilled staff to cope with the problem, so that they can come to the help of the poorer rural areas without financial resources or skilled assistance. There is no solution of the problem, especially in the rural areas, apart from executive regional authorities. The right hon. Gentleman, with his majority, and with the time that he has had at his disposal, has missed a magnificent opportunity to organise our water supplies on a national basis. If we criticise the Bill, it is not because of the actual provisions that it contains. We criticise it because of the big opportunity that he has missed to prevent ever again the effects of the kind of drought from which rural and many urban areas have suffered in the last 12 months.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. CHORLTON

I am glad to have an opportunity of joining in, though it is a little difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman, because he began to talk about a subect which is of great importance, and then ceased just as we were waiting to hear in detail what his proposals were. I congratulate the Minister on the successful way in which this important Bill has been carried through with so little real obstruction, by argument at any rate. It must be due to the way in which he has met all the points that have been raised so successfully and so quietly before and during Committee and Report. I admire that, because in the end he has succeeded in getting an improved Bill in a remarkably short space of time. It will meet the conditions of emergency very well indeed.

Something was said on the last Amendment but one on the wider aspect of the question, and I am rather disappointed that the Minister did not give in little more detail what is actually going to happen when these powers are in his hands. I hope we may hear some better description of what it is proposed to carry out. After all, what is the use of emergency powers unless you are going to find more water, at any rate on the average? Where is this water to come from? What is the proposal? If it is that there is not any more in toto but that it is going to be better averaged, what are the connections that are going to be made between certain undertakings in order to bring that about? It underground supplies are going to be tapped, we should be very interested to have some indication of the class of development. The whole subject raised a little earlier by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is very important. It is to be regretted that it was raised then and not now, because we might possibly have had a reply in some greater detail.

We should like to know if, when the Minister possesses these powers, he will carry out a more extended and properly co-ordinated policy with regard to water supplies generally. He ought to be able to do that within the time. It is a matter which has been recommended so often and so strongly by various committees, and these powers will enable him to do it thoroughly and in detail whereas, if the Bill were permanent, they would not. This is the great objection to making it permament. If we could hear a little more as to what it is proposed to do, not only would it be a satisfaction here but the country at large would feel that the problem was Being tackled in the sense that an emergency measure was dealing with the present and that the future was being dealt with by planning. In regard to the working side—the applied side—of the proposal, it is not unfair to ask how these emergency powers are to be exercised. I am not speaking now of the works to be done, but by whom they are to be carried out by. The Minister says that the undertakers would now have a chance to undertake them. Are we, then, to await action? Are we to await a combination of water undertakers? Or when, if ever, is the Minister going to step in and force them to act? That is one of the difficult things that we have never heard about. Are any means provided for accelerating the pace? The power is there. Are you going to exercise it, and who is going to be responsible, and, if the water supplies are not increased by the late summer or autumn, who is going to be blamed?

The other point is in connection with rural areas. The Bill deals with urban areas very largely, and it would be of interest if we could hear something of the way in which the difficulty is to be met in rural areas. All that has been said so far is that £1,000,000 will produce by its help so many schemes that many times that amount will be spent in toto. Are these all to be run separately or will they be connected up one with the other, as the Bill would seem to indicate? It is on the broad aspect of the whole question that one would like to hear a little more. People generally would feel that the subject was receiving the attention that it deserves. The Minister says he is well advised. I do not doubt that he is. He certainly has an advisory committee of skilled engineers, and he could not do better, but is the advisory committee based sufficiently broadly? Does it contain on it the interests that are concerned in water supply and water use? That is one very important side of the question. It seems that it may possibly be on too narrow a basis. The right hon. Gentleman ought to draw in all those who are really concerned, and he would then have an advisory council which would adequately meet the situation.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

The right hon. Gentleman opposite resented the suggestion that he and his party were on the horns of a dilemma, but he made very little attempt to remove himself and his party from that dilemma. He talked about some hypothetical future comprehensive Bill dealing with the whole water supplies of the country. That Bill will probably eventuate, but this is essentially a temporary Measure, to which the great majority of his remarks did not in the least apply. My object in rising is to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speedy and happy passage of the Bill. That success is mainly due to the considerate way in which he has met the considerations placed before him by navigation and rural authorities. He is about to succeed in obtaining an instrument which I believe will be of great use and which I am sure he will use with wisdom and effect.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. McKIE

Perhaps, in view of the prominence that was given to Scotland by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), a Member from Scotland may be allowed a few words. I am sure the overwhelming majority of Members have received the Bill on the Third Reading with the same readiness that they accorded to the Second Reading three weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman made an amplification of his remarks upon the Second Reading, but I agree with the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) that it is very difficult indeed to make out just exactly what he does want. As the Minister said, he and his friends have come to the conclusion that it is so useless that it is necessary to make it permanent. It has been stressed over and over again that it is not intended to initiate anything in the nature of permanent legislation. If it were I am sure there are many who would not be content to give the Bill that hearty God speed which it is sure to receive.

The right hon. Gentleman thanked hon. Members for the speediness with which the House had acted on this occasion. I am certain that he realises, as we all realise, that this is the open forum of discussion. While we are perfectly glad to assent to what is contained in this Bill, we realise that this is an appropriate moment for voicing what we feel to be grievances against local authorities, some in rural areas, but more particularly—and this is the point—in the urban areas, for having neglected in the past to make due provision not only with regard to shortages which might arise from the abnormal conditions which this Bill seeks to remedy owing to the drought of last summer and all through this winter, but also with regard to the increasing consumption of water which is taking place in all parts of great Britain.

I said on Second Reading that in Scotland we had had for many years a higher consumption of water per head than what had been the case in England and Wales, and now England and Wales is following Scotland's lead. When I alluded to this fact, I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), whom I am glad to see in his place. He suggested that the reason why Scotland had this much larger consumption of water per head than England was due to certain propensities which are summed up in the historical ballad known as "'Phairson swore a feud." While there may be something in what my hon. Friend says about certain propensities which are not by any means confined to Scotland, I do not think that he can seriously mean that that is the reason why the Scottish nation have consumed more water for all these years than has been the case in England and Wales.

But putting Scotland quite out of it, the whole Kingdom to-day is daily consuming more water. We are told during the present emergency to keep our use of water down to the minimum, and I am certain that all right-minded citizens will do so. Still as time goes on we cannot get away from the fact, although we may look for a continually decreasing population for the next decade or so, that the use of water is continually on the increase, and that is why I hope that, although this Bill is of an emergency kind, local authorities, especially in the urban areas, will take note of what has been said by many hon. Members in all parts of the House at all stages of this Bill with regard to their taking time by the forelock. They cannot really do that now, but they can make repentance at the eleventh hour by making due provision which, in many cases, they ought to have done many years ago. City fathers in certain cases—and I am thinking of one particular case—40 or 50 years ago made aqueducts of a greater size than was necessary for the amount of water which they were using at that time. It was simply because they had in view another and a greater scheme which would be brought into operation when the right moment arrived. For various reasons, in many cases, that has not been done, and citizens all over the country are faced with this menace not only on account of the drought conditions which are still prevailing, but on account of those responsible for directing local affairs not having acted in the way that they should.

The hon. Member who spoke on the Report stage—he was supported by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—and advocated that the Measure should be made permanent, missed the point. The making of the Measure permanent would not bring about the conditions which he desires. He and his colleagues must initiate some far larger scheme. While I for one always turn down any proposals put forward, grandiose scheme, without taking the financial considerations into reckoning, for launching out in all directions, in many cases into unproductive channels, I would pay very special attention to any scheme that they put forward with regard to making due and adequate provision for supplies of water. I think that that would be a way in which we might very judiciously expend public money, and we should also get, what we all wish to see, at all events, a slight draining off of the numbers of unemployed. If there is to be a Division, I shall most certainly whole-heartedly go into the Lobby with the Government. I would merely say that I hope that, while we cannot all agree on all the ingredients in this Bill, we do realise the necessity which has arisen for undertaking this legislation, and I earnestly hope that the local authorities will profit by what has been said in the course of these Debates.

5.22 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE

I only want to make one remark in reservation of my most cordial support of this Bill and congratulations to the Minister on the pace with which it has been carried through. But it is necessary to state that I feel, as a good many other hon. Members do, the very grave danger of emergency measures which are taken out of the hands of Parliament and made subject simply to Ministerial Order. Upstairs I suggested that it might be advisable, and that possibly it was necessary, that such Orders should be laid on the Table of the House so as to give Parliament an opportunity of reviewing them or approving them. I believe that to be the right principle to adopt. The reply I received was that it would delay matters. I do not think that it would delay matters at all, because this is the practice followed in regard to the Tariff Orders. Because this is creating such a precedent, I have some qualms in giving to the Minister the duty and responsibility of making these Orders without Parliament having an opportunity of reviewing them. I hope that the matter may be taken into consideration in another place because I feel uneasy in regard to it, but in every other respect I congratulate the Government on what seems to be very useful and prompt action.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. MITCHESON

I should like to offer my congratulations to the Government upon introducing this Bill, which must meet with the sympathy of every Member of the House in whatever party. We are all interested in, and sympathise with, the desire to improve the position of young peoplee in work. I am glad to congratulate the Government, because last year I had to oppose a Labour party Bill dealing with adults in shops.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The hon. Member cannot be aware of what is going on. This is not at all applicable to the Third Reading of a Water Bill.

Mr. MITCHESON

I beg your pardon.