HC Deb 17 October 1950 vol 478 cc1948-50
Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 30, line 40, after "works," to insert "may."

Perhaps we might at the same time take the next Amendment, in page 31, line 3, after "shall," to insert: afford to the undertakers reasonable facilities for supervising the execution of the authority's works and shall pay to the undertakers concerned an amount equal to any cost reasonably incurred by them of supervision for which the promoting authority is by this section required to afford facilities and where the execution by the undertakers of any undertaker's works or the taking by them of any other measures is rendered necessary for the purposes aforesaid, the promoting authority "— for when the two Amendments are taken together, they raise a point of some principle. Under the Bill the undertakers can, when they are going to interfere with the works of a transport authority or a sewer authority, in view of the Amendment which we have now made, be saddled with the cost of supervision incurred by the transport or sewer authority in order to secure that the works of those authorities are not interfered with.

That is obviously right, but what is sauce for the gander is equally sauce for the goose, and the right of supervision at the expense of the executing party does not and should not depend solely upon the question whether the undertaker has the right to break open the works of the authority which seeks to supervise. I know from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that that is a distinction which he seeks to draw. In moving his Amendment with regard to the sewer authority, he based it on the ground that undertakers might have the right in certain cases to break open the sewers and therefore the sewer authorities should have the right of supervision at the undertaker's expense.

But quite apart from the breaking open of a sewer, the question of support for a sewer is of great importance, and equally support for a water main. Where works are to be undertaken in the immediate neighbourhood of a water main, the undertaker concerned—the water company or water board or, if the worst comes to the worst, the nationalised water board—should have the right of supervision. There, again, the undertaker doing the work should be required to pay the reasonable cost. That seems to me to be a reasonable principle.

The same really applies where the work which is being done does not necessarily involve a breaking open of another undertaker's apparatus but involves coming so close to the other undertaker's apparatus that that apparatus may be affected and may subsequently suffer damage. The effect of the two Amendments is to seek to secure that the undertaker whose apparatus, whether it be a water main, an electric wiring box or union, is being approached by the other undertaker which is executing the works shall have the right of supervision at the expense of the authority doing the works.

The right hon. Gentleman has extended the provisions giving the right of supervision at the expense of the undertaker. It was originally given only to the transport authority. We have now decided that it shall be given to sewer authorities. It ought also to go to the water authorities. The simplest way of dealing with it would be to give it to all undertakers whose apparatus is likely to be affected by the works which it is proposed to execute. I know that this is rather a major change, but I think that it would improve the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say "yes" today, I ask him to give this matter further consideration before the Report stage on Friday. It is an Amendment of importance, and in practice it will be found to be desirable.

Mr. Barnes

It was my intention to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he was proposing a fairly substantial change, one of those alterations which as I previously indicated would upset the balance of agreement. However, in his concluding words he invited me to examine the project and I will agree to his request to keep the matter open. As he quite rightly pointed out, on the representations of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs we extended facilities for them under a previous Amendment. I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes me now to consider whether a body like a water board should have equal facilities and, if we propose to go in that direction, whether the proposal in his Amendment would not be the best way of achieving that. As he is prepared to leave the matter open until the Report stage, I undertake to examine the Amendment in the meantime.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Although there is no statutory right of breaking open a water main, I should think that it is vital to see that a water main gets adequate support. An undertaker could bore a tunnel under a water main and deprive it of support and the result might be the breaking of the main. I have in mind the right of supervision being given in a case like that. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.