HC Deb 27 June 1966 vol 730 cc1549-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

7.40 a.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for being present at this hour of the morning to reply to the first Parliamentary debate on Manchester's water needs since the somewhat repetitive and rather eccentric debate held in another place on 9th February, 1962.

First, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the judgment he has made concerning Manchester's application to abstract water from Ullswater and Windermere. It is less easy to congratulate him on the time he took to reach that judgment, although I well understand the difficulties which faced him on a subject about which there has been such conflict between emotion and logic. My right hon. Friend will know that Manchester has readily given the assurance about public access to Hawes-water which was asked for in paragraph 36 of the decision letter. I hope that there will thus be no further delay in making and laying the Order before Parliament.

For my part, what I found disconcerting about the decision letter was its insistence on 1980 as the date by which another major source of water ought to be available to be brought into use. In paragraph 36 of the letter, the proposals to allow water to be taken from Ullswater and Windermere are said to be designed to meet the Manchester water undertaking's needs "until 1980 or thereabouts". The letter also appears to accept the assumption that between 1970 and 1980—and I quote from paragraph 6— the demand on Manchester will increase no faster than at present. In my view, that it is an entirely wrong assumption.

Manchester has been advised by consultant water engineers that there should be a margin of 10 per cent. of resources over demand to meet contingencies, and an estimate based upon the current trend of consumption shows that demand will overtake the yield of all resources, including the full Ullswater and Windermere proposals, by 1974 or 1975.

Of course, we have not been given the full Ullswater and Windermere proposals. My right hon. Friend's decision on the City's draft Water Order will have the effect of reducing the supply from Ullswater from 25 million gallons a day to 20 million gallons a day, with the result that it would seem prudent to take 1974, or even 1973, as the year when another major source of supply should be available for use.

Moreover, if we are not to have a serious and avoidable water shortage in the mid-1970s, the new source should be identified this year. I emphasise this because, as the experience of both Liverpool and Manchester has shown, it takes a minimum of three years to design a scheme and obtain authority and a minimum of five years to acquire all the lands and easements and carry out the work of construction.

The idea that the demand upon Manchester will increase no faster than at present is not only myopic. It is also utterly inconsistent with our plans for sustained economic growth. It has been estimated that about 3 million people already rely, directly or indirectly, on water supplied by the Manchester undertaking. Manchester quite literally "carries the can" for more than two dozen of its neighbouring authorities in the North-West. As population increases, as standards of living improve and industry demands more and more water, the quantity available must be stepped up.

With more sophisticated production techniques and the expansion of such industries as chemical manufacturing and food processing the requirement is for water of a high and constant quality. The importance to the north-west region of having an adequate supply of water available wherever it may be needed has frequently been demonstrated. The availability of assured supplies for many years ahead is often a key factor in the location of new industry, or in the expansion of existing industry, with consequent benefit to the region.

Where, then, is Manchester's major new source of supply to be found? In the proposed estuarial barrage schemes? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, in reply to a Question on 23rd May, told me that even on the most optimistic assumptions a barrage scheme at Morecambe Bay would not make water available till the early 1980s. Neither this nor desalination will provide the answer to the problem I have outlined.

It is, however, interesting to compare my right hon. Friend's reply of 23rd May with the statement made by the late Lord Birkett, when, in the last Parliamentary debate on Manchester's water needs, he referred to the possibility of distilling seawater as something which is just around the corner". Manchester's leading adversary was as badly wrong in saying this as he was in stating that the Ullswater and Windermere proposals were of no urgency, when he went on: I emphasised as strongly as I could the fact that there is no note of urgency about this matter at all".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 8th February, 1962; Vol. 237, c. 236.] Very soon afterwards, in the spring of 1963, the Jellicoe Report was published and showed that the Manchester undertaking might have insufficient water to meet its obligations at any time after 1965. It went on to agree that the city should make plans for the provision, possibly by stages, of an additional reliable yield of about 50 million gallons a day "as a matter of urgency". I put it to my right hon. Friend that it is now even more urgent to identify a major new source of supply this year. Indeed, urgency has rarely been more urgent.

At the meeting my right hon. Friend attended with representatives of the Manchester City Council on 26th May it was agreed that, since Morecambe Bay or desalination would not be ready before 180, other works would have to be provided to meet the long-term needs of the North-West for water and that the Water Resources Board should now consider a limited number of possible schemes likely to be most suitable and prepare a list of possible schemes for consideration by the Minister in the autumn, so that a programme of investigations can then be planned. It was also agreed that Man- Chester would be kept in touch with progress through the Mersey and Weaver River authority. Manchester very much welcomes those agreed arrangements and would like to see the programme of investigations proceed as quickly as possible.

I feel sure that my right hon. Friend can be relied upon to do all in his power to help. Water has the distinction of being a basic requirement of life and the No. 1 raw material of industry; and social and economic planning is about nothing if it is not about this. To recall a phrase used at the Kendal public inquiry, last June, the millions of people and the enormous industrial interests which rely on having water available cannot be expected to continue living "on a meteorological razor's edge".

7.49 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for giving me the opportunity to say a few words in this debate, because the whole of Lake Windermere and part of Ullswater are in my constituency, and hence I am very much involved.

This is not the time or the place to start a long discussion on the draft Manchester Water Order on which the Minister made his decision a few weeks ago. That, of course, was a short-term solution to the problem, as the Minister said in answer to a Question of mine on 16th May. He told me that he regarded one of the alternative schemes put up at the public inquiry as a possible long-term solution and the draft Order as a short-term one. Hence, I do not feel that the draft Water Order comes within the terms of the debate, which deals with the long-term needs.

In passing, may I say that it is a very bad decision for the Lake District. It is one which would make the great Lord Birkett turn in his grave. Whether the Minister likes it or not, it means that Manchester would have a foot in the door of Ullswater, and, whatever he may say now or in the future, as he says in his decision letter, he cannot bind his successors under any circumstances. This is the part of the decision which gives rise to most fears and causes most concern in the Lake District.

With regard to the long-term proposals and the long-term needs for Manchester, there is not and never has been a dog-in-the-manger attitude by those concerned with the Lake District. There is a great deal of floodwater which runs down to the sea from that part of England, and we must look very hard at the Solway proposal, as is happening already. There is a great deal of waste hydroelectric water which runs to the sea at that place, and it may well be that that waste hydro-electric water could provide the key to Manchester's long-term needs.

There were alternative schemes put up at the public inquiry, as the Minister knows. I hope that those will be looked at properly in the time ahead. I am sure that the Minister, will tell us that the Water Resources Board will be looking at all these needs and at all the possibilities. I hope that he will tell us just what mandate the Water Resources Board will have in looking at the water resources of the north-west, and that he will tell us just how it will go about its business.

The great objection to Manchester's approaches in the past has been that the city seemed to people in the Lake District to want water at the least possible cost, regardless of the amenities of the area. It is those amenities which are most jealously guarded by the people who live in the Lake District.

Mr. Alfred Morris

I did not refer to amenity, but I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) will take it from me that Manchester people are not against scenic beauty. They are as keen to preserve scenic beauty as anyone else and——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have long interventions when a Minister is waiting to reply.

Mr. Jopling

The one assurance that I would like from the Minister this morning is about the Winster Valley. That is one place at which Manchester has already made a set. While the Minister cannot bind his successors, we would like an assurance from him that, as long as he holds his present office, he will not be a party to having that magnificent valley flooded. We would like to know whether he agrees with Mr. Carter, the Chairman of the North-Western Economic Planning Council, that to flood the valley would be unthinkable.

The Lake District has a very special and a very brittle beauty. The amenities of it are not expendable, in any circumstances. Above all, there should be no panic measures in the future, because of the crisis which is approaching Manchester, to attempt to use the lakes for an emergency situation.

7.55 a.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for raising this issue, and I hope that he will realise that the importance which I attach to it is indicated by the time in the morning when I have decided to reply to him.

My hon. Friend is quite right in saying that the belief that we can wait until 1980 for a further source of supply for Manchester is unrealistic. I would say to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that those who waited would find themselves under pressure to undermine the safeguarding of the lakes which I have been trying to write into the new Order. There is no delay about the new Order. It is with the printers, and it will be made as soon as it comes back, either at the end of this week, or next week, so there will be an opportunity to see it and discuss it.

It is true that on Manchester's calculations some further supplies will be necessary by 1973–74–75, and I am urgently concerned, with the Water Resources Board, in trying to find these further supplies in good time. It is also true that the severe cutting back of Manchester's supply from Ullswater, implicit in the new Order, makes this search for supplies even more important.

There are one or two things which I should like to say about sources of supply. I think that we can rule out the More-cambe Bay barrage or the Solway as producing water before 1980. It may be good for the second range of supply, but for the first instance it would not be good enough. We can also rule out desalination for the period of the 'seventies, and for this period, therefore, we have to look elsewhere.

As my hon. Friend knows, I am making sure that the Water Resources Board, which I have invited to do this, shall before the end of this year draw up a list of conventional water schemes for urgent investigation. The Board has promised that this will be done, and we will start this work before the end of this year.

The Board has a Northern Committee which is assessing long-term demands and resources for the whole of the North of England. It includes the technical officers of all the river authorities concerned and of the principal water undertakers—including, of course, Manchester. Its study will cover the period up to the end of the century, and will take account of river regulation works, direct abstraction from inland water and underground plus barrages and desalination.

But, as I have said, the Committee's immediate task, which it is accelerating at my request, will be to prepare a short list of schemes for Manchester and South-East Lancashire on which urgent detailed investigation must be concentrated. When this report is ready, my officers and I will meet the Board and discuss the proposals. Manchester will, of course, be fully associated with the discussion.

Manchester has asked whether it should be setting its own consultants to work on new projects for the long term. I believe that the Board wants me to discourage that, because it is the job of the Water Resources Board and the river authorities to do the exploratory work which, in the past, was left to the individual water undertaker, or was neglected. This exploratory work is now being done by the Northern Committee.

When the preliminaries have been completed and a short list of possible projects drawn up, I want Manchester and its consultants to undertake detailed further investigation of some of these projects which look likely, others being left to the river authority concerned. Manchester need be in no doubt that its co-operation will be used to the full, but this time it will be under the general direction of the Board and of my Ministry.

There will be nothing more from Ullswater. There will be no more artificial reservoirs like Winster Valley. There will not be any more of that sort of thing, but we must look forward to the long-term. We have to look at the lower reaches of the rivers in this region. This is the area on which we are concentrating our attention, and I can tell both hon. Members that on this occasion the exploration is taking place early enough to provide the necessary interim solution in the mid-seventies, before the major solution of the 'eighties.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eight o'clock a.m.