CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of Public Health Act, 1936, s. 127.) (Hansard, 24 February 1948)

§ Mr. J. Edwards
I beg to move, in page 8, line 1, at the beginning, to insert: (1) Where, under Subsection (3) of Section one hundred and sixteen of the Public Health Act, 1936, the Minister approves the construction by a local authority of works for taking 1885 or intercepting water, he may by order (to be made by statutory instrument) impose on that authority such restrictions or obligations as appear to him to be expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the carrying out of those works. The Minister has found it necessary, in giving his consent under Section 116 (3) of the Act of 1936, to works by a local authority for the extraction of water from underground, to impose conditions for the protection of existing wells and bores. At the present time, effect can be given to these conditions only by a rather troublesome procedure requiring the local authority to enter into agreements with each of the owners concerned. This Amendment would enable the Minister in such circumstances to make an order which would have a binding effect on the local authority. The procedure in this respect will conform with the procedure when the construction of works is authorised by an order under Section 23 of the Water Act.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
This Amendment improves the Bill, and I am glad to get the indication that the Minister will have regard to the importance of preserving supplies in wells which are so widely relied upon in different parts of the countryside. I hope that the taking of this power will mean that he will have great regard to the effect of pumping on lowering the water-table in different parts of the country. I am sure the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) will confirm the view I express, that no doubt a great deal has happened in that way in the lowering of the water-table in different parts of the country, which, in its turn, has placed a greater demand for water upon the shoulders of the statutory water undertakers, so that there has been a more or less vicious circle. I hope that the taking of this power means that the Minister of Health will have great regard to that particular matter.

§ Mr. Berry (Woolwich, West)
I join with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in welcoming this Subsection, because it will have the effect he mentioned. At present, the lowering of the water-table in certain parts of the country is most serious. For instance, the position in East Anglia is giving some of us quite a headache. I am hopeful that this Subsection will indicate a further extension of the trend the 1886 Minister has been carrying on for some time.

§ Mr. J. Edwards
I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, at the end, to insert: who supply water under that Act.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I rise merely to point out that the grammar does not now seem correct. Is it right to say, a local authority who supply water"? Should it not be "a local authority which supplies"? If it should be the latter, I suggest that the Amendment be moved in that form.

§ Mr. Edwards
That point had not escaped me. I will look into the matter further. I understand it is possible to treat the word "authority" as a collective noun, and that, therefore, it is grammatically correct. If I find that, in fact, the usage of lawyers does not conform with what I now say I will put it right.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
That does not deal with my point, because it is "a local authority," and the Amendment commences, "who supply." If it is "local authorities" it is right to say "who supply"; but if it is "a local authority," surely the verb should be "supplies."

§ Mr. Edwards
Let me make the point clear. If we are using the word "authority" as if it were "it," the hon. and learned Member is right; but if we are using the word "authority" in a collective sense, and we really mean "they," then as it stands the grammar would be correct. This is really a matter for lawyers, and I will take advice on it. This morning I did notice this very point and examined it.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
Surely the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) has often opened a case by saying, "My clients are a company who supply"?

§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
Why should it have occurred to anyone to insert in this Clause—which apparently deals only with providing local authorities with 1887 power to make a charge otherwise than by meter for the supply of water to premises which are used as a house—the far wider powers, which are designed to deal with the maintenance of the water-table at an appropriate level underneath the whole country? It occurs to me that the Amendments made to this Clause—admirable though they seem to be in themselves—would probably have been far more appropriate somewhere else. I cannot see the connection between the Amendments made and the Clause itself.

§ Mr. J. Edwards
The answer is quite simple. We are concerned here with amendments to the Public Health Act, 1936. They are put together from that point of view, and the side heading covers both.