HC Deb 25 February 1960 vol 618 cc651-69

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when this Bill has been called upon other occasions it has been objected to. I must, therefore, conclude that there are hon. Members who require some more detailed explanations of its provisions. Quite frankly, I have read the Bill over and over again and I am completely at a loss to understand why there should be any objection to the provisions it seeks, especially as we are proposing that in Committee—if the Bill is sent to Committee—there shall be an application for withdrawal of some of the Clauses to meet the wishes of a town's meeting in the city which required that those Clauses should be be withdrawn.

It may be that objection has been taken to the Bill on what one might call a matter of principle—that this House must always remain the guardian of the people's purse and that in pursuance of that responsibility it insists on an opportunity to discuss the purposes of the Bill on Second Reading. If that be the case, I certainly have no objection and I should not complain. Bristol Corporation has nothing to hide from the public or from this House in the proposals that it seeks to incorporate in the Bill. It is seeking to obtain nothing through the medium of legislation in this House by what one might call back-door methods.

This is a perfectly straightforward, general powers or enabling Bill which seeks powers believed to be in the best interests of the public in our city, and especially to make provision for the speedier flow of our internal traffic. Incidentally, that could go a considerable way towards easing the terrific traffic problem which confronts road users in the peak holiday period on their way to West Country resorts. That, as I say, is an incidental consideration.

There is really only one major proposal. Other Clauses have been inserted because, as members of local authorities who are hon. Members of the House will know, when a corporation is to promote a Bill and has spent money on its promotion it seeks to find from its various departments whether there are any other matters which should be incorporated and other powers which should be sought. So there are Clauses in the Bill which arise as a result of requirements other than the main proposals in the Bill. Because hon. Members may have interests in some parts of the Bill, it might be convenient if I say that, if it reaches Committee stage, we are proposing to seek the withdrawal in entirety of the Clauses in Part IV. We shall also seek to withdraw Clauses 39 and 57.

The main proposal, the most important and major proposition in character, is the construction of two new bridges over the River Avon and Cumberland Basin. Those bridges are to be part of a large highway improvement scheme for this area of our city which will also include the building of an elaborate underpass and flyover system. I do not believe that anyone in the City of Bristol does not recognise the need for this, or that anyone would object to the proposed improvement being effected.

I also call attention to the reasons why we have to apply for this Parliamentary permission. Since these new bridges will cross navigable waterways, it is necessary for the Corporation to obtain specific powers to construct them. Those powers, together with powers to construct certain subsidiary works, are contained in Clauses 15 to 19 of the Bill. I shall briefly explain the present position. Cumberland Basin is the entrance to our important city docks. The River Avon, as many hon. Members know, is a tidal river. The water is locked in so that the dockised part of the river can be used at all times for discharging and loading.

This also means that at all tides a considerable volume of shipping passes in and out of our docks. At present, in this area where it is proposed to construct these new bridges there is only one swing bridge. That bridge is over the basin and carries most of the road traffic entering and leaving the city from the North, the West and the South, and also quite a formidable part of the internal city traffic. When that bridge is opened all this traffic is halted and soon there is a huge build-up of traffic over a wide area. As hon. Members may know, because probably they have passed through our city on their way to the South and West Coasts, in the summer months this often leads to an utterly chaotic situation.

If the House allows the Bill to go forward—as I trust it will—and it becomes an Act, the new bridges with the flyover and the underpass will ensure that the flow of traffic will never cease, for, when one of the bridges is open, the other will be closed. By the use of the flyover and underpass we shall always be able to move traffic in and out of the city, irrespective of the use of the basin by ships leaving our docks to get to the open sea.

Clause 22 would permit the stopping up of those portions of the highways which are required for the purposes of constructing the approaches to the new bridges. I ask the House to note this. If hon. Members read the Bill carefully, they will find that none of this stopping up will be permitted until the Minister of Transport is satisfied that adequate alternative highways have been constructed and are in fact open for public use.

I refer again to Part II of the Bill, which is the part which relates to the acquisition of lands required for the purposes I have briefly outlined. The only land for which powers of compulsory acquisition are sought are five pieces of land owned by the British Transport Commission. They are required for the approaches and the bridges and a compulsory easement is also required for carrying a highway over the railway at one point. The British Transport Commission does not object to this in principle. We confidently believe that the matters of detail which will have to be settled will be agreed between both parties without, we hope, even having to trouble a Select Committee.

I shall say a word about Part V of the Bill. I am dealing only briefly with the Bill and trying to assess the Clauses which may call for some observation or some objection by hon. Members who may be interested in its provisions. Clause 33 provides that persons shall give the Corporation not less than 14 days' notice of its intention to install oil-burning equipment in any building to which the Clause applies, that is, any building other than a private dwelling-house. The Clause will also permit the Corporation to make byelaws to secure that oil-burning equipment is properly installed and that adequate fire protection and fire fighting appliances are provided. The byelaws will, of course, require confirmation by the Secretary of State.

I emphasise to the House that this Clause does not operate so as to prevent the installation of oil-burning equipment without the consent of the Corporation. It is designed merely to provide a maximum code of public safety. There are other Clauses which relate to some control being accorded to the Corporation over the storage of inflammable liquids, such as paraffin oil, which may be stored on the premises of a hardware shop, or petrol which, unless properly stored, would constitute a public risk and perhaps public danger.

I emphasise particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary that in asking for powers of registration of these shops we are thinking in terms of premises which store more than 50 gallons. Speaking entirely personally, I would have thought that 50 gallons of paraffin or any other inflammable liquid was quite a dangerous fire risk. We are suggesting that the registration should be of premises which store more than 50 gallons. Our only purpose in asking for registration is that we shall know where these liquids are stored and be able to convey that information to the fire fighting service, so that should a fire break out on those premises it would be possible for the fire brigade to anticipate the risk which they would have to face.

I believe that there is a probability of the Government bringing in legislation which would be applied nationally and which would seek to effect some of the controls which we have put forward, although perhaps not in the same language as the Bill. If that is so, we should be completely happy, because we do not want to ask Parliament to give us any powers which would be a duplication of anything which might be provided by national legislation. We ask only for this power if it is not available to us through any Act of Parliament at present on the Statute Book or likely to be on the Statute Book in the near future.

I know that there is concern on the part of the Government about the proposals of Part IV of the Bill which relate to finance and superannuation. We are asking for a Clause which, I understand, is similar to that which has been obtained by a number of other local authorities in recent sessions of Parliament. In other words, we seek to extend the range of securities in which moneys forming part of the Corporation's superannuation fund are to be invested.

I understand that the Treasury is at the moment considering what, if any, modifications to the Clause are necessary following the publication of the White Paper. I am advised that I may give to the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance that we shall seek to withdraw Clause 39, since the Minister of Transport wishes the matter to be dealt with by a new pilotage byelaw. Similarly, if the Treasury is proposing any alteration which would meet the proposals in the Bill, we should be very happy also to withdraw Clause 38.

I should like to refer to one matter which is in a sense unique or, at least, something which I believe to be without precedent. I feel that there are occasions when it is wise to re-establish precedents. Clause 34 is a proposal perhaps to establish a precedent and the Bristol City Council attaches much importance to it. For several years we have been carrying out in the city a scheme, which got under way before the war and which had to be abandoned on account of the war, for a huge main drainage and storm water sewer project. It is costing the city many millions of pounds.

The scheme is aimed ultimately at securing that practically the whole of the city will be free from flooding. Even when I was a very small boy—and that is a few years ago—there was a road near where I lived where there was flooding every time we had a thunderstorm, even if the storm were not of great magnitude; the water flooded back through the houses, bringing sewage and many other things.

This went on for many years. Steps were taken by the local authority to alleviate the position, but ultimately, with the enormous growth in housing in the inter-war years and subsequently, the storm-water sewer and the main sewerage system has become almost incapable of carrying this water away, and in recent years we have been subject to a considerable amount of flooding. We shall not be able to provide for extremely abnormal rainfall, but we think that the worst of these conditions will disappear when the storm-water sewer is operating.

The Corporation has on many occasions found itself almost powerless to give to citizens the assistance which it would like to give at these times. We have done as much as we have been able to do, but we are proposing that we may be granted the authority to set up a fund of about £10,000 which we can use for alleviating general distress when flooding occurs in the city. I hope that the House will give very sympathetic consideration to Clause 44, which makes this provision. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is somewhat concerned about it, but I suggest to him that his concern should not go beyond the point of saying something about it in Committee, and possibly modifying it if he thinks it ought to be modified or having a further explanation of it in due course.

There is much more in the Bill, but I leave it there. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading, for I believe that there is nothing in the Bill which is adverse to the public interest in our city or, for that matter, the interest of anyone else who may be concerned.

7.33 p.m.

Major W. Hicks Beach (Cheltenham)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on having given us a very clear explanation of the Bill. I am on record as having said on past occasions that when Bills of a complicated nature are presented an hon. Member ought to explain them to the House. I therefore take this opportunity of thanking him for his very clear explanation.

There is one point only which I should like to put to him. I thought I understood him to say that the whole of Part IV of the Bill, which contains some Clauses to which I personally object, is to be withdrawn. Is that correct?

I congratulate him on having presented the Bill very clearly, as my view is that such Bills should always be clearly explained.

Mr. Wilkins

I can give the hon. Member an assurance that if the Bill is sent to Committee, leave will be sought to withdraw Part IV.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I should like to add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on the explanation which he has given to the House, including the lengthy explanation which he gave of the geography of my constituency. The Bill, in effect, is about Bristol, West, with other things tacked on to it. I am grateful to him for having explained that part of the Bill so that I need not go over it again.

Mr. Wilkins

I would remind the hon. Member that the two bridges will connect his constituency with mine. It may therefore be to enable us to go the other way!

Mr. Cooke

I have my doubts about that. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Member on the explanation which he has given.

He said that the Parliamentary Secretary would have an opportunity to speak on the Bill in Committee, but as far as I know the Committee stage will be taken by a small Committee upstairs and the Parliamentary Secretary will not speak there. Indeed, no Bristol Member will take part in that debate. That is why I feel that it is valuable that we should have this short discussion today.

I do not oppose the Bill, but the House should know that the Bill is acceptable to it, I hope, because of a victory of the democratic processes over the forces of bureaucracy. When it was thought necessary to introduce the bridge scheme—which is a necessary scheme and is the main point of the Bill—it was thought fit in the Bristol Corporation to go round all the committees and departments to see what they would like to stick into the Bill. A whole lot of very unacceptable proposals were put forward. Some of them were taken out in the corporation committee, some were taken out by vote in the full council and some were taken out at a town meeting.

That is a point on which I should like to comment briefly, in passing, because there are people who say that town meetings should be abolished. We should not have had the very salutary effect of some of the objectionable parts of the Bill being taken out if we had not had a town meeting in Bristol. I hope that this sort of democratic process will never be abolished.

I welcome the road scheme, which is the main provision of the Bill, but carrying out a great scheme like this is bound to upset quite a number of people. In this case all those people are constituents of mine. The case has been made in presenting the Bill that the powers sought in the Bill will not involve the purchase of any house property or the disturbance of any people, but by the very nature of the bridge scheme many people will be disturbed. They are all constituents of mine, many of them having lived in this historic area of the water front for many years. The whole character of that part of Bristol is to be changed by the great road scheme.

I here ask for the Corporation of Bristol to make a public declaration between now and Third Reading that it will make every effort in its power to accommodate in that area the people who will be disturbed by the bridge scheme. I ask the Corporation to make a public declaration of that intention. I give the Corporation, between now and Third Reading, the opportunity to make that declaration in a satisfactory form, otherwise I shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. I feel very strongly that the interests of my constituents may not otherwise be safeguarded in the way that I wish them to be safeguarded.

The remainder of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous matters. Some of them deal with fire precautions. Some are good, but many people in the world of commerce feel that some are somewhat restrictive, and they will no doubt have something to say when they appear before the Committee later, because they can be represented there.

I welcome the scheme for flood relief. In the past we have not been able to do as much about this as we should have liked to do. I particularly welcome the idea that the City Art Gallery should be allowed to accumulate its fund from one year to another so that at one point it may have enough money in the fund to buy one good picture. Thanks to the Wills family, we are fairly well off, because that family has given large sums of money, but that will not go on for ever, and this is a very sensible provision.

I welcome the scheme by which a special part of certain public parks can be reserved for aged people where they will be undisturbed by the perhaps more riotous performance of the younger generation, and even of people like myself. I also note that it is necessary in Clause 58 to include the power of entry into places where public meetings are to take place, That should have been in the Bill of 1950 but was left out. This shows that these Bills can sometimes slip through in an improper form.

Many of these small matters would not have to be brought before the House in a Private Bill at all if the Government would introduce a Local Government (General Powers) Bill. Such a Bill is badly needed. We could save much of the House's time by giving all these necessary small powers to local authorities. They could all be properly discussed, and we could ensure that no unreasonable powers were given, if the House passed a General Powers Bill for all local authorities.

Although I do not oppose the Bill, there are some powers in it which could be abused if there were a domineering local authority, as we have had in Bristol in recent years. However, it is now tempered by the fact that the Socialist Party has a majority of only one. It is all right now that we have a fair balance. No doubt the Conservatives will have power next year. If there were a domineering local authority, some of the powers could be abused, and for that reason I have misgivings about the Bill.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South for explaining the Bill and giving me the opportunity to make these remarks, because I feel that these things must be said. Indeed, I am one of those people who feel that no legislation should go through either House without being properly discussed.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery (Bristol, Central)

The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has given qualified approval to the Bill. I should have preferred it if he had objected to it and stated his objection frankly to the House. He has endeavoured to introduce party politics into a Bill of this character. He has told us what has been happening in Bristol, which has been governed by a Labour council for a number of years. The Bill has been prepared with the approval of a council elected by the people of Bristol. It has been sent to the House because Bristol has not the power to carry out the necessary works. I thought that it was a non-contentious Bill. When it came before the House objection was taken on two or three occasions, but I understand that that objection has now been withdrawn and the Bill is not to be opposed at any time.

Mr. Robert Cooke

The only means by which we could possibly have a Second Reading debate on the Bill was for technical objection to be taken every time the Bill was called. That is why the Bill was objected to. At least, that is my information.

Mr. Awbery

I am merely saying that objection was taken to the Bill, but that objection has now been withdrawn and the Bill comes before the House. I thought that it would have the full approval of everyone, particularly hon. Members representing Bristol, the city which sent the Bill to the House for approval.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) for giving us a detailed explanation of the Clauses in the Bill. Most of them have precedents in other local authority Bills. There is nothing new about them. The powers for which Bristol asks are in most cases exercised by other local authorities. Other authorities have brought their Private Bills before the House of Commons, and in most cases the powers being asked for by the Bristol City Council have been included in those Bills. The objections which were raised in the early stages have been amicably settled between the parties concerned. No doubt they sat around a table, discussed the problems and removed the grievances. This is a clear indication that negotiation around a table is good machinery by which to settle differences. I understand that there is now no opposition.

The main theme of the Bill, its chief object, is to give the authority in Bristol powers to construct the two bridges and the approaches to them stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South. They may come partly in Bristol, West; they may come in Bristol, Central; but this is a Bristol scheme—not a Bristol, West scheme, nor a Bristol, Central scheme, nor a Bristol, South scheme. The Bristol people think that the work which is to be carried out is necessary. The Corporation has to come to Parliament and ask for powers to carry out the scheme, because it does not already possess them. That is why the Bill is here.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how I can reach Bristol from my constituency and from my home if these bridges are demolished? Will there be alternative access over the Cumberland Basin from the west?

Mr. Awbery

The proposal in the Bill is to construct two bridges over the Avon and over Cumberland Basin. The bridges there now will become redundant and will be removed.

Bristol asks for this power. We sometimes place obligations and responsibilities upon local authorities to carry out work which they cannot implement until they come to the House and ask for power. It is strange to place an obligation and not give the authority the power to carry it out as it thinks necessary. Bristol Corporation asks for these powers to construct the bridges and the approaches. It asks for powers compulsorily to acquire the necessary land and to build the bridge over the railway. The owner of the land is the British Transport Commission. The Commission has not objected in principle to the Bill, though I understand that it wishes some variations of a minor character to be made which can be mutually agreed upon. That can be done without a great deal of trouble. Compensation to be paid for the land that is to be acquired and for the extinction of the rights which are to be removed can be arranged by mutual agreement.

Mr. Robert Cooke

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he deal with the question of the compensation and rehousing of my constituents who will be disturbed by the scheme?

Mr. Awbery

The local authority asks for powers to pay compensation for any disturbance which takes place. Provision is made to compensate those concerned if houses or roads are disturbed or land is taken from landowners.

I stress what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South stated. These roads are absolutely essential in the interests of the City. The volume of traffic is increasing rapidly. I know that during the last twenty years we spent a very large sum on roads. Even so, the roads are not in a satisfactory condition to carry the increased volume of traffic. The Port of Bristol is very large, and much of the cargo to and from it is carried over our roadways. Therefore, it becomes necessary to bring our roads up to date for the purpose of carrying that traffic. The cargo was formerly carried on the railways. Now it has been transferred to the roads, which are not efficient to meet the demands of the road traffic. The roads are very often congested. Bottlenecks are created because of the volume of traffic. The local authority wants power to ease the congestion and remove the bottlenecks. It wants power to meet the changing circumstances by building better and larger roads. The amount of traffic which passes over the roads at present was never contemplated two decades ago, otherwise the roads would have been made much better.

As the hon. Member for Bristol, South said, Bristol is the gateway to the West Country from the rest of England. Traffic goes through Bristol to Cornwall and other parts of south-west England, particularly during the holiday period. This creates great traffic difficulties in Bristol. The Corporation has done a great deal to improve the roads. The two bridges proposed in the Bill are absolutely necessary to carry the traffic that will use the roads in future. We have been told by the hon. Member for Bristol, South that they will cross navigable waters. Because of that, it is necessary that powers should be sought from this House for the bridges and subsidiary work. We have been told that the Minister of Transport will be consulted when the changes take place and alternative roads will be made available to the public when other roads are closed.

Reference has been made to flood relief. There have been floods and the local authority is asking for power to establish a fund to compensate the victims and to help people who may be affected by future floods. The Corporation hopes that as a result of the scheme which is almost completed floods will be unknown in future, but if they occur the Corporation wants power to compensate the sufferers.

As I have said, there are precedents for most of the Clauses in this Bill in other legislation. As far as I know, no Clause in this Bill raises matters which require the special attention of this House. That is why I hope that the Bill will not be opposed. By the Bill, the Corporation asks for exceptional powers which it does not possess. I am confident that the Bill will commend itself to the House and will be carried unopposed.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren (Bristol, North-West)

I am in agreement with a good deal of what has been said about the Bill by my brethren from Bristol on both sides of the House. This is a general powers Bill and, therefore, it is bound to be of a rather miscellaneous character. The most important proposal in it deals with the new bridges and road improvements at the Cumberland Basin. In the centre of Bristol, we have a tide-less stretch of water known by the unusual name of the Floating Harbour. It is still used by foreign-going ships, as the Port of Bristol has been used for many centuries going back to the days of Sebastian Cabot. The Floating Harbour joins the tidal River Avon at the Cumberland Basin.

The Cumberland Basin was, for the most part, constructed 150 years ago. It is, therefore, not surprising if the general lay-out of the roads and bridges is not adequate to cope with the flow of modern traffic. It is a place of more than local importance because, as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) said, Bristol is on the direct route from the Midlands to the southwestern peninsula. Dr. Barbara Moore had to pass through it the other day.

For anyone proceeding from the Midlands to the South-West, Bristol presents an obstacle for two reasons. First, one has to pass through a large city of almost 500,000 people. Secondly, one has to get across the River Avon. Most traffic goes by this route past the Cumberland Basin, and on Saturdays during the summer great traffic congestion results. There is a long queue which divides the whole City of Bristol into two. I often feel sorry on Saturday mornings for holiday-makers with young children having an irritating wait on what should be a happy day for them at the beginning of their annual holiday. The works proposed in the Bill will, I hope, alleviate this congestion and, accordingly, I welcome them. I am certain that they are badly needed.

I also welcome the proposal to extend the range of securities in which the Corporation may invest its superannuation funds. There are several precedents for this, notably Manchester, where the Corporation has done so well. We want everyone, including local authorities, to share in the blessings which investment in equities brings, although I concede that if the general law is about to be changed Clause 2 may need reconsideration.

I should like to refer to Clause 44, which concerns the flood relief fund. I support the principle here. We have low-lying areas in the city, near our two rivers. After heavy rainfall, the furniture, carpets and household effects of many people have been damaged through no fault of their own. Possibly the Corporation feels that if its drainage system, which it is in process of improving, had been better those people would not have suffered loss. It is proposed to introduce something like the principle of compensation for war damage which was familiar to us during the later years of the war, so that contributions may be made to the succour of people's neighbours who may be unfortunate and that they may be compensated for their loss.

The Bill has followed a very democratic process because it was submitted to a town's meeting convened under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933. Quite a lively evening took place. Certain provisions in the Bill were turned down. The whole of Part IV as to streets, buildings, and sanitation was turned down. Clause 57, which is a rather vague Clause dealing with powers for research into matters concerning social conditions, was also turned down. Those Clauses will not be proceeded with, and I feel that what remains may be approved.

We are a very ancient community, one of the principal cities in the Kingdom since early medieval days. Yet, we have always shown a modern vitality and outlook. We think that the provisions in the Bill are needed to keep us up to date in the conditions prevailing in the second half of the twentieth century. It is in that spirit that I submit that the Bill may be commended to the House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I wish to refer to a remark made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) in the course of his speech on the Bill. I join with him and other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) on the way he introduced the Bill to the House. It was a model of the way in which such a Measure should be explained to us by a Member for one of the constituencies covered by the Bill. It left us in do doubt about exactly how much of the Bill now remains and the proposals of the Corporation in regard to it.

The hon. Member for Bristol, West said that he hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about the suggestion which has been canvassed in many places that there should be a periodical introduction of a Local Government (Miscellaneous Powers) Bill to enable a good many of the things that are dealt with in these Bills to be part of general legislation and that they should not be steadily built up by first one corporation and then another bringing in the proposals and, in the end, things being assumed in some places because they have happened elsewhere when they are not, in fact, in operation in a city or borough which has not promoted a Bill.

In the last Session of Parliament I had the honour of serving on a Joint Select Committee which considered the question of the promotion of Private Bills. Although on a Joint Select Committee a Member of another place is elected as chairman, if he does not turn up to a meeting the senior Privy Councillor from this House takes the Chair. It was my misfortune on several occasions to be so landed with the duty of leading the examination of the witnesses.

Nearly every witness who came before us urged that the proposal which the hon. Member for Bristol, West has today mentioned should be put into force and that at intervals of, say, ten years a Bill should be brought in from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government bringing the general powers of local authorities up to date and making the application of what they propose effective over the whole country. There was also a feeling that there are one or two other Government Departments that similarly affect local government, one of which, curiously enough, was the Board of Trade with regard to weights and measures and in respect of which a similar process might be followed.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something tonight about the intention of his Ministry concerning this proposal. It would avoid a great deal of expense to local authorities in numbers of them promoting Clauses in Private Bills which should be unnecessary if his Department kept the local government law of the country up to date.

8.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

Perhaps I may deal straight away with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) and then with the formidable support of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the need for regular, general legislation. It is true that successive Committees investigating various aspects of Private Bill procedure have recommended that public legislation of this kind should be promoted at regular intervals by the Government.

My right hon. Friend fully agrees that this is a task which needs to be undertaken from time to time. It is well known that his Department has progressed a long way in the preparation of two Bills which would generally extend to all local authorities a considerable number of well-precedented local Act provisions. I do not think that anyone will argue that simply because a Clause has appeared in a local Act or in several local Acts, it should be extended automatically to the whole country.

The essence of local legislation is that Parliament allows special powers or dispensations to meet the proved needs of a particular locality. The needs of one area are not necessarily shared by all other areas. Many local Act Clauses deal with matters of comparatively minor significance. Not all of them are urgent. Each Clause, therefore, needs to be looked at on its merits to see whether it should be made available throughout the whole country.

Having said that, however, there is little doubt that general Bills of this kind, when enacted, would remove some of the pressure for local legislation and reduce the length of local authorities' Private Bills. The introduction of these Bills depends largely upon the volume of other business coming before Parliament. On this point, I cannot go further than to repeat the Answer given by my right hon. Friend on 10th November last, in reply to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). My right hon. Friend then said that the first of the two Bills which are being prepared—on public health matters—would be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permitted.

I should very much like to support the Motion for Second Reading. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) so clearly explained, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable Bristol Corporation to construct two bridges, one over part of the docks in Bristol known as the Cumberland Basin and one over the River Avon, as part of an extensive scheme for the improvement of highways in this area of the city.

I understand that the Corporation has taken the opportunity afforded by the need to promote a Bill for these purposes to seek, at the same time, a modest number of miscellaneous powers of the sort which regularly appear in local authorities' Bills and which the Corporation considers will be helpful in carrying out more effectively its duties as a local authority. There are numerous precedents for many of these provisions in the local Acts of other local authorities.

We have heard comments on a number of the provisions from the chorus of Bristol Members who have spoken to the House tonight—the hon. Member for Bristol, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren). Needless to say, they will not be surprised that my right hon. Friend does not consider that the Bill as drafted is perfect and he has taken up with the promoters a number of points on Clauses dealing with matters with which he is concerned. Other Ministers have done the same.

The hon. Member for Bristol, South referred particularly to Clause 33 of the Bill, which deals with oil-fired boilers. It differs in some respects from provisions dealing with the same subject which Parliament has already allowed in the Manchester Corporation Act, 1958, and the Portsmouth Corporation Act, 1959. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be suggesting certain Amendments to the Corporation.

The hon. Member for Bristol, South told us that Clause 39 had been withdrawn. That is welcome news to me. He also talked about Clauses 38 and 40, which give power to the Corporation to invest a proportion of certain of its funds in equities. Clauses for this purpose appear in seventeen local authority Bills this Session. As the House knows, the recent Government White Paper on Powers of Investment of Trustees in Great Britain dealt with this subject and the Government intend to introduce legislation early next Session.

In these circumstances, the Government feel that they must oppose these provisions in these Bills. The Treasury has written to the local authorities concerned asking that they shall be withdrawn. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, if necessary, urge that the Clauses be deleted when the Bills reach Committee, but in view of the very co-operative way in which the hon. Member for Bristol, South spoke, I am sure that in this case that will not be necessary.

The hon. Member also spoke of Clause 44, which empowers the Corporation to set up a flood relief fund, and several other hon. Members have spoken on the same Clause. My right hon. Friend would not for one moment question the general intention behind the proposal, but he sees certain difficulties about the Clause as drafted. For instance, it seems to overlap in some respects powers which are already available for dealing with the problems arising from flooding. He has accordingly asked the promoters to discuss the Clause with him.

In the view of my right hon. Friend, however, none of these matters would justify the House in any way refusing to give the Bill as a whole a Second Reading. They are all matters capable of being dealt with in the first instance by a Select Committee upstairs. Indeed, a Select Committee, with its facilities for hearing evidence from the Corporation and from any objectors to the Bill together with the views of the Ministers concerned, and of examining whatever papers, maps and plans might be required, can give the Bill a much more searching and satisfactory examination than it is possible for us to do on the Floor of the House.

In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend has asked me to express the hope that, in accordance with the normal practice, the Bill will be given a Second Reading so that its contents can be scrutinised in the usual way. No doubt the Select Committee charged with that task will take note of the views expressed in tonight's debate, and it will certainly be given any assistance it requires from the Ministers concerned with the various Clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.