HC Deb 20 February 1948 vol 447 cc1558-67

3.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "for," to second "the," and insert: transferring to the applicants, whether by agreement or compulsorily. This Amendment fills a gap in the Bill. Cases may arise where it is desirable, at the same time, to set up a new undertaker under Section 23 of the principal Act and to transfer to the new undertaker the whole or part of the undertaking of the existing undertakers who will not agree to the transfer. Without this Amendment, the objective may be attained only by two separate, successive orders. Hon. Members will recollect, that when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I showed that a great deal of the effect of the Bill was to enable operations to be done once which required at present to be done twice. This Amendment enables the whole operation to be done under one Order, and is in line with the general purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

I think it is right to say that this is the first time that the element of compulsion has been introduced into this Bill in the course of its passage through Parliament, and I think we ought to have from the hon. Gentleman a much fuller statement on why he now wants to take power by order compulsorily to transfer one undertaking to another, whether statutory or not. It is some time since I had an opportunity of considering in detail the Water Act, 1945, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the undertakers threatened with the compulsory acquisition of their undertaking by some other undertakers, in consequence of the order, will have ample opportunity before an independent tribunal of putting forward their grounds against the proposal, and also of hearing the grounds put forward in the proposal for making the compulsory acquisition.

I do not know what is the intention behind this Amendment, but I thought when I read it that it might be intended to apply to cases which may arise where a new town is sited in a rural area, where, in order to provide water for the new town, there might have to be some compulsory transfer of an undertaking from a local authority, which may result in considerable shortage in rural areas where water is badly needed. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman, even at this time, if he would make it quite clear to me that the threatened undertaking is amply protected by having opportunities of putting forward its case before any order compulsorily transferring the property of that undertaking can be made.

Mr. J. Edwards

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in supposing that this could arise in the case of the new towns. It could also arise in the case of the setting up of a joint board, by agreement, under Section 1 of the principal Act. I think he need have no fear on the other points. Nothing that is being done under this Amendment would enable anything to be done that could not otherwise have been done, in two stages, and which would be quite permissible at the present time. First, the new undertakers could be set up—that requires one order—and then, when they were established, they could start the machinery for an order under Section 9 (2) of the principal Act for the compulsory transfer of the existing undertaking.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the undertakings which it is proposed to transfer would not be prejudiced in any way. They would have exactly the same right of objecting and forcing the issue to Parliament as if the transfer were sought in two stages. My own feeling is that the undertakings themselves will probably be glad to have this, because they will be spared the somewhat difficult task of deciding, as they must when there are two successive orders, On which point to offer their resistance. I feel that, from everybody's point of view, simplification is an advantage, and that the undertakers whose undertakings it is proposed compulsorily to transfer are absolutely protected. All that this Amendment does is to enable two things to be done under one order instead of, as now, under two separate orders. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that his fears are quite groundless.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, to leave out, "the purposes of the order," and to insert, "that purpose."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. J. Edwards

I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "shall," to insert: except as provided by the Section (Compulsory acquisition of land for construction of waterworks) of this Act. It might be for the convenience of the Committee, Major Milner, if, on this Amendment, which really paves the way for other things, I made a general statement. This Amendment and the proposal to leave out Clause 3, the Amendment to Clause 10, page 8, line 44, the new Clause, and the new Schedule are really all bound up together. While, of course, I am in your hands, Major Milner, it seems to me that it might be convenient if I made a statement covering all of them.

The Chairman

I have no objection if that is the wish of the Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am not quite sure where we are getting to on this. It seems a lot to bite off at once on a Friday afternoon to deal with an Amendment to this Clause, the deletion of Clause 3, an Amendment to Clause 10, and a lengthy new Schedule 1, of course, have no objection to the Parliamentary Secretary making a wide statement in moving this harmless looking Amendment, but, at the same time, I hope, Major Milner, you will not say that we must just have one Debate on all these matters, and then only a Division on the later Amendments. It might be for the convenience of the Committee to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say with regard to the matter generally, but not, I think, to debate in generally, and, perhaps, to confine one's debate to this particular Amendment.

The Chairman

I am in the hands of the Committee. We can either have a discussion on the new Clause or on the new Schedule, or we can have a general discussion now.

Mr. Edwards

I should be perfectly happy, if it met the convenience of the Committee, to deal formally with this Amendment, and the Amendment to leave out Clause 3, and to have the main discussion on the new Clause, but I did not want anyone to feel that I had prejudiced the issue by slipping through these paving Amendments without a word.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I think it might be a convenient course to take this Amendment formally—we can see it is a preliminary—and then to take formally the Amendment to delete Clause 3, because we can always seek to put it back at a later stage, but there may be a point on Clause 10 which we may wish to discuss, and I would not like it to be assumed that that must go formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Berry (Woolwich, West)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "land," to the end of line 44.

If this Amendment were accepted the proviso would read: that no such order shall empower the undertakers to acquire compulsorily any land … leaving the subject of compensation water to be dealt with subsequently. This would prepare the way for consideration of putting the law in England on the same footing as the law in Scotland on this matter. While I know there are special reasons, under certain circumstances, for differences in the law in the two countries, there would appear to be no reason at all for any difference in relation to compensation water, because the circumstances are largely the same.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

There is more water in Scotland.

Mr. Berry

It is true that there is more water in Scotland than there is in this part of the country, but the subject of compensation water applies more to the North-West of England.

Mr.Manningham-Buller

indicated dissent.

Mr. Berry

The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) shakes his head, but I have in mind a place known as Haweswater concerning which discussions have taken place on the subject of compensation water. This would very largely be governed by subsequent action on the new Clause standing in my name. I hope it will not be held to prejudice discussion on that Clause if I observe that the first piece of legislation undertaken by the present Government was the Water (Scotland) Act which reached the statute book in 1946. I hope the fact that it was undertaken by the present Government will not be held against it, because it was a necessary corollary to the Act of 1945 The new Clause which I hope to move later on will put the law relating to compensation water on the same footing in both countries. I have no wish to prejudice discussion on the new Clause, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider this Amendment, and I hope he will see his way to agree to it.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I hope the Government will show no hesitation in resisting this Amendment. The real argument which has been put forward in support of it is that it brings the law into conformity with the law of Scotland. As a lawyer, it has always appealed to me much more to have the law of Scotland brought into conformity with the law of England. The problem in Scotland with regard to compensation water, surely, has not anything like the aspect that it does in this country. I should have thought the whole question of compensation water was much more acute South of the Border than North of it.

However that may be, I would ask the Committee to appreciate that the whole object of this Amendment is to give power by order to reduce the compensation water; we do not need any power by order to increase the amount of water, in the case of compensation water, which is going down a river. In the Derwent Valley, for instance, the amount of compensation water was very carefully calculated before that big scheme was brought into operation. This Amendment may inflict grave injuries on the community living in the neighbourhood, not only the riparian owners who rely on the compensation water for agricultural purposes and not only on those engaged in industry, who also rely upon a constant flow down that river of an amount not less than the stipulated amount of compensation water.

It may be greatly to their prejudice if the Minister suddenly has power to reduce the amount that can go down. If this power is given, it will constitute a risk of severe injury to the amenities of the countryside and, indeed, I wonder what is the purpose of retaining a Minister of Town and Country Planning if, at the whim of the Minister of Health—who has so far not shown himself to be any great lover of the countryside—an order may be made whereby the compensation water would be substantially reduced, with the result that a river, which was the chief attraction of a pretty valley, is reduced to a mere trickle, with three quarters of its bed visible to the naked eye, whether it be mud or rock.

The effect of this Amendment does not stop there. What about the interests of the anglers? They come from all sections of the community. I can well imagine what anglers might feel if, after having long planned a holiday, with the difficulties of travel and of securing hotel accommodation, they went down to the river to fish and to spend a peaceful afternoon, to forget all their troubles—the troubles which this Government had brought upon them—and found there was no water in the river because of an order made by the Minister of Health—no water in the river and, consequently, nothing to fish for. It could not be said that it was due to an act of God, although I can believe it might well lead to a new version of the fisherman's prayer.

There is another aspect of this matter—the question of pollution, which is a big question in this country and, perhaps, a big question in some parts of Scotland, although not in the Highlands. The Thames Conservancy has a standard—I do not think it applies to the whole of the country—as to the correct effluent which it is permissible to dis- charge, but that standard takes into account the quantity of water into which the effluent is going. It may well be that in other rivers there will be an effluent which is obnoxious, but which is discharged at the present time without doing harm because of the amount of the water in the rivers; they might be fast flowing, and the volume is sufficient at the present time to make the effluent completely innocuous. Supposing there was a river in which the compensation water was settled at the time the scheme was brought into operation—the compensation water was assessed taking into consideration the interests not only of anglers, riparian owners and amenities, but the whole effect upon the countryside if that compensation water was reduced too low. Supposing that now, by order of the Minister, because of a particular need for more water in a particular town, the compensation water is reduced. I fear it may result in increased pollution of our rivers and streams, because the more we reduce the volume of water, the more will be the poisonous effect of the existing effluents.

The hon. Member, I am sure, will agree with me that there are not any rivers passing through any of our industrial towns which are not receiving at this present time a very considerable degree of pollution. If the amount of water flowing through is appreciably reduced, will not also the amount of pollution be considerably increased? I should have thought that followed.

I suggest to the hon. Member that he ought to join with me in expressing the view and the hope that compensation water should not be touched. We are really drawing on reserves when we take compensation water, and drawing on them to the injury of many other people. I know, and I am sure he knows full well, the urgent and great need of water there is in many different parts of our land—not only in London, but in the Midlands, and in my part of the world, Daventry, in particular. I am quite sure that we should be pursuing a wrong policy if we tried to solve the problem of our water shortage in all localities by extracting compensation water. Our solution surely should be to examine the reserves of water of this country, and then to seek to provide an adequate supply to the great industries, a supply which will yet permit the rivers in our valleys to flow, to look pure, and to be attractive to those who go into the countryside.

Mr. Berry

Has it struck the hon. and learned Gentleman that he might approach many of those on whose behalf at times he speaks to suggest that they might considerably improve the character of their effluents?

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am not at all sure, since that suggestion is put to me, what is really meant by it. I represent my constituents. I have no interest personally in any one who seeks to pollute rivers. I have spent a good deal of time in trying to stop pollution. I remember once spending 31 days in a case to try to stop pollution. I do not understand the hon. Member's point. I am sure he will agree with me that sometimes local authorities are not entirely innocent in that respect. However, the real point is, surely, that one ought not to draw anything from compensation water unless one is forced to, and that we ought to look everywhere else for water first. I hope that, bearing that in mind, the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Government will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. J. Edwards

I am surprised at the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He has made arguments from the point of view of amenity, from the point of view of fisheries, from the point of view of pollution; and he implied throughout that the Minister of Health is the enemy of all these interests. He suggested that if the Minister has to consider those matters he is bound to take a decision against those interests; whereas, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows—or ought to know—my right hon. Friend is, in fact, the Minister responsible to Parliament for some of these functions, as, for example, those concerned with water pollution. The suggestion that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes that compensation water should never be touched is a startling one. At the present time, if there is agreement the Minister can make an order.

For my part I think that there is a good deal in this Amendment. As the law stands, the position is not satisfactory. If the Minister makes an order, that order will be subject to special Parliamentary procedure, so that the last word rests with Parliament, unless all the interests are in agreement. This Amendment would have the advantage of enabling the Minister to consider a proposal where there might be objections at the first stage, which might be made as the result of a local inquiry or further consideration between the parties before an order was made. Therefore, I do not share the hon. and learned Member's direct opposition to this Amendment. There is something in the Amendment, and while I would not pledge myself today, if my hon. Friend withdraws the Amendment, I would look into the matter between now and Report stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I must add a little more upon this subject, which I regard as one of great importance. He approached my argument solely on the basis that I was not in favour of the Minister of Health having any powers which he does not possess at present. While that is a very good argument, it was not the one I put forward. My chief argument was that, when the compensation water was settled before constructing the water works, all the people living down the valley concerned would know that they could rely, day in and day out, on a constant water supply. Industries would be built up, which have to rely on water being available—electricity and all categories of undertaking. It is very important for riparian owners that there should be a constant supply of water available. I also mentioned other interests affected. Is it really desirable that there should be, by order, power to place in jeopardy the amount of compensation water going down the river?

I made no attack upon the Minister of Health; nor did I make a gibe that in my opinion he has not shown sufficient interest in the countryside. I should oppose any Minister of Health having such wide powers as apparently the Minister of Health can obtain under this Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to face up to the principle which I sought to adumbrate, that there should be no interference with the amount of compensation water by reducing it arbitrarily by any order made by the Minister. We are always told that there may be an inquiry after the order is made; but once the order is made it is very difficult to get it upset. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will consider this Amendment between now and Report stage. We shall want to know much more in detail why he seeks to take this power, because, as I understand it—and I think I have read the Clause aright—under Clause 2 as amended the Minister has power—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—

Mr. Berry

On a point of Order. In order to help the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), on the undertaking given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

Surely, Major Milner, that cannot be a point of Order? I was addressing the Committee in opposition to this Amendment, and answering the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. If the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) intends to withdraw the Amendment, well and good. At the same time, as I imagine this sort of point will recur later on in the Bill, I wanted to put my views to the Parliamentary Secretary so that he shall have an opportunity of fully considering them before we debate the Bill again.

Mr. Berry

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Four o'Clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.