HC Deb 10 March 1970 vol 797 cc1201-56

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. Speaker

I have not selected the six-months Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and others. That non-selection will not affect the debate.

If the Question for the Second Reading of the Bill is decided in the affirmative the Instruction in the name of the right hon. Gentleman will then be called, but I suggest that the matter canvassed in the Motion for Instruction might conveniently be debated on the Question for Second Reading. If that course commends itself to the House, there could be a general debate, including matters raised in the Instruction, followed later by a separate Division on the Instruction, if this is desired, and provided that the Motion for the Second Reading is carried.

There is a suspension Motion on the Order Paper which, if carried, would enable proceedings on the Instruction, but not on the Bill itself, to be concluded after Ten o'clock.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, would you reconsider your guidance to the House in this matter? The arguments on the Instruction which relate solely to the charging scheme are entirely different from the arguments against the Bill. The Instruction is a particular point under the Water Resources Act 1963. This creates a dangerous precedent in that respect. If one were to bring that argument into the general argument on the Bill—which is that of invading a national park unnecessarily—it would make the debate complicated and, I suggest, unduly prolonged.

I ask, therefore, that the short point on the charging scheme might be reserved from the main debate until, in the event of the Bill getting a Second Reading, it is taken by vote.

Mr. Speaker

It will be taken by vote in any case. What we have to decide is for the House to decide, whether, if we have two debates, we shall not find them overlapping.

I would have thought that the reasons advanced in the Instruction might have been urged in the general debate. If the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends wish to preserve the right to have a separate debate on the Instruction, however, by all means they can do so. The Rule is to be suspended for the Instruction at Ten o'clock. If the Bill does not get a Second Reading there will be no debate on the Instruction.

So far, 17 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate on Second Reading, which cannot go beyond Ten o'clock.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield Bright side)

I rise with a great deal of pride in being associated with this Bill. It is of great importance to what I consider to be the finest county in Britain; namely, Yorkshire. To that end I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will listen to the arguments put forward and in all objectivity, rather than from a position of bias, vote accordingly when the time comes.

The Bill is promoted jointly by the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority, the Kingston upon Hull Corporation and the Sheffield Corporation to authorise the construction of works by the river authority for the regulation of river flows in the River Derwent and the River Esk for water supply purposes and the construction of works by Kingston upon Hull and Sheffield Corporations for taking water from the lower reaches of the River Derwent.

Very briefly, the principal river regulation works comprise a barrage consisting of sluices and a navigation lock at the mouth of the River Derwent at Barmby, between Goole and Selby, and a reservoir on the River Dove in Upper Farndale in the North York Moors, with intakes in the River Dove and Hodge Beck for pumping water into the reservoir to supplement the normal run-off from the reservoir catchment.

I would like to anticipate many of the points which the objectors to the Bill might want to make and give what I consider to be—and as far as my research goes—authentic, responsible and technical reasons why there is no great substance in the vast majority of the objections which are likely to be mooted in this debate.

The Farndale Reservoir proposed in the Bill is on the same site as a reservoir which the Kingston upon Hull Corporation is now, by Act of Parliament, authorised to construct under powers conferred upon it by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation Act, 1933; as extended by subsequent enactments and, most recently, by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation Act 1952.

The position should be made clear: whatever happens to the Second Reading debate, there is nothing to stop the Kingston upon Hull Corporation putting in a reservoir at Farndale. All the land required for the construction of the reservoir, which was authorised in 1933, has been acquired by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation, and the statutory period for completion of that reservoir scheme will not expire until the 30th June, 1975. The reservoir authorised by the Act of 1933 is, however, a direct supply impounding reservoir of the type proposed in the now ill-fated Calderdale Water Bill and would have provided, for water supply purposes, a reliable yield of only 18 million gallons per day.

Since the days of those plans there has obviously been a great deal of progress in the technology of supplying water. It has been recognised for some time by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation that more effective use of the reservoir in Farndale would be made if it were available for use in accordance with the modern technique of river regulation by the discharge of water into the river at times of low natural flow in order that a constant quantity may be taken by direct abstraction in the lower reaches of the river.

This Bill is not a simple parochial Bill. It has very important regional connotations for the whole Yorkshire area. The proposed reservoir and sluices will make available 88 million gallons of water per day additional to the present yield. Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley and Leeds already take 25 million gallons per day of the present yield by their abstraction works at Elvington. Of the additional yield of 88 million gallons, the river auth- ority proposes to make available to Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley 15 million gallons per day and to Hull 12 million gallons a day. This accounts for only 27 million gallons of the 88 million gallons per day, leaving a balance of supplies for other abstractors who might want to take water from those undertakers. Those other abstractors which, so to speak, are in the queue, include Scarborough Corporation, Rawmarsh Urban District Council, Wortley Rural District Council, Pontefract, Goole and Selby Water Board, and Doncaster and District Joint Water Board.

The Calder group, comprising the Calderdale Water Board, Huddersfield County Borough Council, the Mid-Calder Water Board and Wakefield and District Water Board, may also have to look to the regulated River Derwent to meet its demands. Rejection of the Calderdale Water Bill will certainly accelerate their needs. Those who took part in the debate on the Calderdale scheme and opposed that scheme should now feel relieved that discussions are at present taking place between that water board and the Yorkshire and Derwent authority to see that the alternative supplies of necessary water are forthcoming. Those who supported the Calderdale scheme can also feel happy because those townships which relied on that scheme are to be assured of their supplies.

I move to some of the alternative suggestions which some objectors to this Bill might put forward. I pay tribute to the amount of work that the river authority has undertaken and to the amount of consultation that has been undertaken. I believe that the authority has bent over backwards to meet any possible objection which might have arisen. Before adopting the Farndale Reservoir site, the authority commissioned its consultant engineers to investigate all possible sites to regulate the flow of the River Derwent. The consultants explored in detail the head waters of the River Derwent and its tributories, and reported on a number of sites which, from a consideration of contours and topography, could be regarded as potential reservoir sites. None of those sites, however, would provide the capacity available at Farndale. The only possible alternative was in the neighbouring Valley of Rosedale in the same area, but the maximum capacity there would have been limited to 4½ million gallons.

The geology of the Farndale site is also more favourable than that of the Rosedale site. The yield from a smaller Rosedale reservoir would be much less than that of Farndale, and if a reservoir were constructed at Rosedale, the site at Farndale would have remained under threat of development for reservoir purposes. As demands for water supply increased there might have been a compelling case to have not only the Rosedale but also the Farndale development. If, however, this Bill gets a Second Reading and, after being duly vetted in Committee, becomes an Act, it is felt that the Farndale scheme envisaged in the Bill will not necessitate any reservoir schemes at Rosedale.

Another possibility which has been considered, and which opponents of the Bill might put forward, is the development of sources for taking underground water. The river authority is at present undertaking a full-scale investigation into the availability of water from underground strata, but it is not considered that any substantial quantities of water could be made available in this way, except in conjunction with surface storage, either for recharge of the water-bearing strata or by way of seasonal variation of the source from which water is taken.

A number of water undertakings and other abstractors in the water authority's area find supplies from underground strata, and, taking one year with another, the evidence at present available to the river authority points to the fact that no additional water could be taken.

Mr. Turton

Will the hon. Member explain why in the survey of water resources of the Yorkshire Ouse and the Hull River Authority, published in 1969, it was recommended in five instances that there was a plentiful supply of ground water resources available both in Hull and in the region of the Vale of Pickering, in the underground strata north of Hull, and in two other parts of those areas? When the survey made those recommendations, surely it must have meant what it said.

Mr. Griffiths

I was about to quote from the Water Resources Board Report, and I shall come to that in a moment. The water which now percolates through outcrops of permeable rocks into the underground strata discharges by springs and percolation into the rivers and makes a significant contribution to the maintenance of dry-weather flows.

I come to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the recent report of the Water Resources Board. In paragraph 22 of its final report on the water resources of the north, the board comments that there are ground water sources in East Yorkshire, as well as in a number of other areas in the north, and recommends that some such ground water sources in Lancashire should be developed in conjunction with surface run-offs to help to meet short-term demands. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make the same point, but the board concludes that underground storage is unlikely to make any substantial contribution in the long term to supplies in this region as a whole. If the right hon. Gentleman considers himself a greater expert than the Water Resources Board, I am sorry but I cannot follow his line of argument.

Mr. Turton

I think the hon. Member misunderstood my interruption. I was quoting from the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority survey of water resources in 1969. In that there are a number of recommendations all showing that there are large quantities of underground water resources available.

Mr. Griffiths

I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman. He will make his point if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Another aspect of sources of water which has been suggested is desalination. The river board does not itself undertake investigations into the practicalities of desalting sea water, but the Water Resources Board thinks that water desalination is not likely to meet demands until the 1980s, or later.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has admitted that desalination is on, certainly in the 1980s. Stage 2 of the Farndale scheme will come into operation in the early 1980s, and I understand that the third stage will come into operation in the mid-1990s. So will he admit that desalination could meet the need of the later phases of the scheme?

Mr. Griffiths

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, but I am sure that he will have read the report of the Water Resources Board very carefully and have seen that the Farndale scheme is given absolute top priority by the board, and should not wait until the late 1980s. The board, which was set up by the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite and has the support of the present Government, gave top priority to Farndale in that report. If we are saying at Government and Official Opposition level that we agree with the board but that in this context it does not know what it is talking about, that it is talking through the back of its neck, we must make our position perfectly clear. We cannot have our cake and eat it.

Some people suggest that a Morecambe Bay barrage could provide the water required. A preliminary study of the possibility of estuary storage in Morecambe Bay was published by the board in 1966–67. It certainly offers prospects of meeting the long-term future demands arising in the river authority's area. A feasibility study of the project is in progress and it is understood that the report on it should be received in 1971. But the water from this source would not be available until well into the 1980s. I hope that hon. Members will at least give the authority credit for not simply taking the easy way out without looking at all possible alternatives before embarking on the Bill.

I now come briefly to some of the consultations that the authority has had and the consideration that it has given to the people living in the Farndale area. It is right that we should state exactly what the authority has done in consulting the people who earn their livelihood in the immediate area.

The land required is 1,920 acres. It is already owned by the Kingston upon Hull Corporation, which lets it to a number of tenant farmers. The Ministry of Agriculture classifies the land as category 4, which is the lowest category of workable land. There are about 19 agricultural units, averaging about 100 acres. For many years the area has been under the threat of the reservoir authorised in 1933.

Some of the former pasture lands have already reverted to moorland. The river authority's officers have met most of the occupiers of the lands and have held two public meetings to explain the proposals. Before promoting the Bill the authority gave careful consideration to whether it should acquire only such lands as were required for the reservoir and the associated works, but concluded that the best course for all concerned would be to acquire the whole area of land held by the Kingston Corporation for the reservoir at Farndale.

Out of the total area of 1,920 acres, about 739 will be required for the reservoir, including the site of the dam, the planting of woodlands for landscaping and the provision of a car park. It is proposed—and here we should give credit to the authority—that the remaining area of about 1,182 acres should be reorganised under the Farm Amalgamation and Boundary Adjustments Scheme of the Ministry of Agriculture to provide workable units for future farming on the lands around the reservoir. The new holdings would be offered to suitable tenants among those who would be dispossessed, and only if there were not enough suitable tenants would the holdings be let on the open market. A number of the present tenants wish to retire, and several of them already work outside the valley either whole-time or part-time. It is thought that if such a farm structure scheme is carried out only two or four families now wholly employed in agriculture in the valley would be faced with the necessity for finding employment elswhere.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

Will dispossessed owners or tenants of farmlands be given priority when the remaining farms are distributed?

Mr. Griffiths

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming to that point. Only four homesteads would be submerged by the reservoir. After the formation of the proposed five farm units, there would remain a further 15 homesteads which could be sold or let by the river authority. It is proposed, however, that the tenants now in occupation should be allowed to remain in their present houses for so long as they wish at reasonable rents.

In formulating the proposals for a farm structure scheme the river authority is advised by a firm which has consulted the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union, and has discussed proposals at personal meetings with the farming tenants. It is hoped that the proposed reorganisation will benefit the local community and resuscitate agriculture in the valley, while the provision proposed for compensation will help those who wish to retire or set up in new jobs. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when the scheme is set up the existing tenants will have top priority.

I would like to touch on some of the arguments about the scenic beauty of the countryside. It is said that setting up reservoirs in this way rides roughshod over people without consideration and without consultation. I would like to show the lengths to which the authority has gone in discussing with all interested parties the repercussions of having such a reservoir in Farndale. The authority has fully consulted the North Riding County Council and the North York Moors National Park Planning Committee in formulating the proposals for the construction of the reservoir, and the Countryside Commission and numerous local amenity and recreational societies, as well as the owners and occupiers of land affected by the scheme.

Neither the North York Moors National Park Planning Committee nor the Countryside Commission objects in principle to the authority's proposals for a reservoir in Farndale. In a letter that the authority received from the Countryside Commission, dated 1st July, 1969, the commission said that it had considered the desirability or otherwise of having the reservoir in the area; and concluded: However, against this it was recognised that plans for a reservoir at Farndale were known at the time of designation of the National Park, and that there now seems to be an obvious need for it to be constructed. The commission expressed the wish to be consulted on the details of the scheme in due course, and this has been readily agreed by the river authority.

The commission said in the letter that there would be an uncharacteristic element in the landscape in that there will be a reservoir there, if the Bill is enacted, which was not there before. But a number of people have expressed the view that a reservoir might even improve the general amenities of the area.

I quote from a letter to the York and County magazine of July 1968 written by Sir Martyn Beckett, President of Rye-dale branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, in which he said: there is no reason why the reservoir, if properly handled, should not enhance this beautiful landscape, the only deficiency of which is the absence of any large expanse of water. Hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to this Bill do not have to take the word of an industrial worker; they can take the word of someone who cares for these things. It is the intention of the river authority to do what it can, in consultation with the National Park Planning Committee and the Countryside Commission, to carry out such landscaping as is desirable to fit the reservoir and its ancillary works into their surroundings.

The authority has appointed as its landscape consultant Mr. D. G. Thornley, who for the last 18 months has been busy not only drawing up plans but consulting various interests. I quote from a letter dated 9th November, 1969, in which the honorary secretary of the Rye-dale branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England commented that Mr. Thornley had the necessary sensitive feelings about the beauty of Farndale, and said: …if we must have a reservoir there, then he is the best man for the job of trying to fit it into the landscape. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will realise that the authority has done everything possible to safeguard the interests of all concerned. As for recreational facilities at Farndale, the authority is still having discussions with interested bodies. It is apparent that there is a conflict of view. As to the operational requirements of the river regulation reservoir, no restriction is necessary on recreational use to protect the purity of the water. Having regard to the situation of the reservoir, in a national park, and to the interests of owners and occupiers of adjoining land, it is the present intention of the river authority that the reservoir should be available for quiet recreational purposes only.

I urge hon. Members to give this Bill a Second Reading. As they will know, since most have greater experience than I of this House, that does not mean that we have signed, sealed and delivered this project. All that we shall be doing is allowing the Bill to go into Committee to be fully debated and investigated. In due course it will return to us for consideration when we would have the benefit of the Committee's report on the Bill.

I would point out to those who love the countryside that I was born amid scenic beauty, in the hills of North Wales. Some hon. Gentlemen might be rather surprised by this, but I was also surrounded by poverty. I believe that in preserving the best of the countryside we must always maintain or try to achieve a decent standard of living for our people. It is an inherent right for everyone in this country to be able to turn on a tap and get adequate pure water.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak. I appeal to hon. Members for brief speeches.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

Early in 1942 the Fiftieth Division was in the Western Desert. It took over the Gazala position from the Polish Brigade. It was told that there was no water available, except for a little salty water from Tobruk. We had then as C.R.E. an extremely able engineer, Colonel Kennedy. He said that he did not believe that and he drove wells down in the Western Desert and we got clear water at Bin Watson in May, 1942. Unfortunately, a fortnight later the Germans drove us out of the position. They got the water and, even more unfortunately, Colonel Kennedy was killed in the fighting.

In the autumn of 1955 I was in Egypt. I was then the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and I was talking to the Minister of Agriculture in Egypt about the Asswan Dam scheme. I related that story about the Gazala position. I said. "I know perfectly well you would get all the water you want for Liberation Province by means of the water wells sunk in the desert." The Minister of Agriculture turned to me and said, "Oh yes, I know that is quite true, but if we did this Colonel Gamel Nasser would lose the glamour and the glory of the Asswan Dam scheme." That is very relevant to this Bill, because there is here the glamour of a great engineering complex which is unnecessary and out of date now.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) gave us, with two exceptions, a very fair picture of the Bill. What he did not tell us was the dates and times of the projects involved in the Bill. There are three stages in the Bill. First there is the construction of sluices at Barmby which will be ready by the end of 1973 at a cost of, roughly £750,000. Then there is the building of a reservoir in Farndale, a third larger than can be filled by gravity. That is to be ready at the end of 1976 and will cost £4¾ million. Lastly, there is the final stage, the pumping of water from Hodge Beck and lower down the Dove from underground rivers, bringing the water back up to the reservoir at Farndale. That will not begin until the middle 1980s and will cost £1½ million.

We have to get this clear, as the Water Resources Board did in its report. There are two separate projects, the sluices and the reservoir. As the Board said in its recent report, phase one, the building of the sluices, will yield 25 million gallons a day, while phases two and three in the 1980s, will yield 22 million gallons a day, making a total of 47 million gallons a day. Let me make it clear that I do not object, and I am sure that other hon. Members do not object, to the extraction of water from the river through the construction of the estuarial sluices. This is common sense, and I hope to make the point that we could get all the required water by this means. My objection is to the construction of the reservoir.

I have here 10,930 signatures to a Petition asking this honourable House not to give the Bill a Second Reading. Some come from my constituency, probably about 2,000, but the remainder come from such places as Hull, Scarborough, Whitby, Leeds—from places as far apart as London and Liverpool. Mostly they come from the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why people object in such places so far apart? What is their objection?

Mr. Turton

That is exactly what I am coming to. They object because it is a nature reserve, a National Park.

The West Riding area of the Ramblers' Association has written a letter as follows: We have noted your fight to save Farndale from the threatened reservoir, and applaud your success in dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill. We would like you to know that you have the complete support of our 1,300 members in your fight. If there is anything we can do to help you to save this precious area please let us know. The Yorkshire Dales Regional Group of the Youth Hostels Association says this: Our regional annual general meeting have passed a resolution pressing for consideration of the above Bill to be deferred. This is very important. We do not object to all reservoir schemes on principle. On the contrary, we have welcomed the schemes which have tended to improve existing amenities, whereas the reservoir in Farndale would do much to spoil the character of the North Yorkshire Moors National Park.

Commander Harry Pursey (Kingston upon Hull, East)

Does not the Kingston upon Hull Corporation already own the land and already have authority to build a reservoir? What is the argument against the reservoir? It is water over the ruddy dam. The Bill sets out to extend the area of the reservoir which the Hull Corporation already has authority to build.

Mr. Turton

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in his ancient history, but not in detail. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would regard the 1933 Act as probably an unwise Act by the wrong kind of House of Commons, but at least by that Act those who lived in the area were protected and were given the first call on the water. This Bill does not do that, I am told. In 1933 we thought then of impounding reservoirs, have not we moved at all from that time? In the white heat of technology, this is not the right way to get more water.

To go back to what I was saying about the objections, Farndale is one of the few dales in England where the wild daffodils grow. The dam will drown one-third of the daffodil area and will possibly so change the ecology of the whole dale that no daffodils will survive. There will be the destruction of 20 farm hold- ings. All the best land at the bottom of the dale will be taken away, and there will be only a bit of upland left which will have to be amalgamated. I know this area, and I have talked to the farmers who will be robbed of their holdings and inadequately compensated.

To make this reservoir, the whole scenery of the area will have to be changed. Moorland roads will have to be made into turnpikes, footpaths will be closed, roads will be diverted and a great 150 foot high embankment will shut out the whole of the upper valley of Farndale.

May I make five points on the Bill. First, I believe that long ago this House and this country should have tackled the problem of waste of water. There has been correspondence in the Yorkshire Post recently pointing out that this country was one of the few highly developed countries which does not meter domestic supplies. We encourage the waste of water. We use 2 gallons of water every time we flush our drains. Sooner or later the Government must tackle the problem of the waste of water. The whole basis of the Bill and of the report of the Water Resources Board is that we shall need 50 per cent. more water at the turn of the century if the Government take no steps to prevent waste.

Secondly, the Government should be encouraging rapid decisions on imaginative schemes for the provision of new water supplies: the Wash Barrage, Morecambe Bay, the Dee and Solway Estuary schemes, indeed the water grid linking the Tyne with the Tees and the creation of the Otterstone reservoir. Each of those schemes will produce eight to ten times the amount of water that will be provided by the Farndale reservoir scheme. It is said that the cost of desalination is high, but surely in this age we should be able to find the solution to desalination. Even if it cost 4s., 5s. or even 9s. a thousand gallons, it is economic sense, and that is what we shall have to turn to.

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Middlesbrough, West)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a rapidly developing technical field? A report appeared in the Financial Times only today of a new approach to the extraction of salt. The Americans produce a technical breakthrough almost every month, and certainly by the end of the century, and probably within the next decade, we can expect major advances.

Mr. Turton

When I was in the Caribbean two years ago I saw what the Americans were doing in Florida, and it was thought that before the 1980s there would be a break-through in desalination.

The Farndale reservoir is unnecessary because the river authority could obtain all the water it requires to meet its deficiency by extraction from the river with the sluices. I agree with the hon. Member for Brightside that we must try to ensure that everybody has sufficient water. Table F of the report of the Water Resources Board shows that the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority will have a total net deficiency in 1981 of 40 million gallons per day. Therefore, the target for the promoters and the opponents is to provide 40 million gallons per day without destroying national parks.

I refer the House to the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority's survey of water resources. From Table 6, which gives river flow records, it will be found that the River Derwent at Stamford Bridge, which is just up the river from Elvington and Barmby, has a minimum mean flow of 64 million gallons per day.

In addition, as the Water Resources Board points out, 4 million gallons a day flow in at that stage from Pocklington, so there is a total of 68 million gallons a day. If the Barmby sluices are in operation all that water can be taken at that point. If 25 million gallons a day are allowed for as coming in for Sheffield under the two water Orders, that leaves an additional 43 million gallons a day. It is immaterial to us how that is split up between the different authorities in Sheffield or Hull, but that water is there and can be obtained, not in the 1980s, but by 1973 when phase one is ready. That could be obtained at once by Ministerial Order without the need for a private Bill.

If it is argued that Sheffield and Hull require more water than can be obtained from extraction at Elvington and Barmby, then I would suggest that they should use the ground water resources near Sheffield and Hull or, if they wish to do so, the ground water resources in my constituency.

What are those ground water resources? Last summer the Hydro-geological Report No. 4 was published dealing with the ground water hydrology of the Yorkshire Ouse river basin. A table in that report gives an estimate of the amount of ground water resources and sets out the potential, what is at present tapped, and what is left over. Table 5 shows the difference between the potential and the abstraction and the amount available in the Yorkshire Ouse area is 775 million gallons a day.

The Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority has also made a survey of ground water resources. It works out in table 9 of its 1969 report the amount of ground water resources available in its area. The river authority differs from the hydrogeological report finding, but by how much? The river authority's figure comes out at 766 million gallons a day.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Bright-side said that the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority thought that there was little available, but in document after document it has made recommendation after recommendation that we should use these ground water resources. How can the hon. Gentleman say that there is very little. The Water Resources Board report, in paragraph 22, skated over this aspect of the matter. I do not say that every man on the board is a wise man merely because the idea of the board was originated by a Conservative Government, nor is it right for me to try to vindicate the board for that reason alone.

The ludicrous point about the Bill is that it seeks to construct a great artificial lake of 8,000 million gallons capacity at a cost of £6¾ million which will lie on top of a great natural lake. Indeed, because the catchment area of the reservoir is not sufficient to fill it, the river authority itself suggests going down into the underground caverns to this underground natural lake and pumping the water up some two or three miles into a reservoir. This is the most abject nonsense.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

Could the right hon. Gentleman say from what in his proposals the figure of 766 million gallons a day is taken and how it will lower the water table? Is he certain that this is from boreholes? Diagrams show the existing rivers with water percolating through from the hillsides.

Mr. Turton

Some of the 766 million galons a day in the western area lies in coal measures which could not be used for that purpose. It is not my habit to talk about things of which I know little. I am speaking about that part which lies in or around my constituency which comprises this great natural lake.

When the Ice Age ended the snow and ice melted and came down into the vale of Pickering and made a lake in size some 164 square miles. Hon. Members will find this information accurately set out in the geological survey for that region. That lake was bounded on the north by the Cleveland Hills, on the west by the Howardian Hills, and on the south by the East Yorkshire Wolds, and when the lake was not covered there was a channel going out at Filey. That lake does not feed rivers but feeds the sea. This has been known for some time to geologists as well as to my constituents. This now lies on a bed of corallian limestone. The whole of the lake is untapped, except for 2 million gallons a day which my constituents take out at Ness and 4 million gallons a day which Scarborough Corporation at present take out at Irton.

The hydrogeological report estimates the ground water potential in the area as 164 million gallons a day, of which at present only 6.3 million gallons a day are being abstracted. Therefore, if the geologists are right, and they are the experts who have examined this matter in the last few years, 157.8 million gallons a day lie untapped waiting to be used.

The river authority has disagreed with that figure, although it was a survey conducted by the Institute of Geological Sciences and commissioned by the Yorkshire Ouse River Board, the predecessors of the river authority. It estimates the untapped ground water resources in these catchments at 76.7 million gallons a day, but whether it is the higher figure or the lower one is immaterial.

The Water Resources Board is saying that in 1980 there will be a deficiency of 40 million gallons a day, it agrees that 25 million a day is coming from the sluice at Barmby, and therefore it wants 15 million gallons a day. That can be met from boreholes, and having done a good deal of this work, we know that the cost of a borehole and the necessary pipe to put the water from the pump into the river in order to regulate the river would be £30,000 for each borehole. Therefore, to make up the deficiency provided by Farndale in 1980, according to the Water Resources Board, it would require 11 boreholes at a cost of £330,000, instead of £64 million. Those are the facts worked out by the engineers.

It has been suggested that it will lower the water table, but how can that be? What we are doing is taking it up from an underground lake which is leaking out to sea and putting it in the river to regulate the river. It has the opposite effect, as the river authority recognises. It is spending £100,000 at Leeds University on research into this very problem. I understand that that research will be completed by 1973. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask the promoters, before they destroy for all time the lovely Upper Farndale, to await the report of the research which they have commissioned. If they are too impatient for that, why not sink a borehole to find it? After all, I speak from a certain amount of knowledge. Twenty years ago, we sank a borehole into the underground river at Ness and, as a result, nearly the whole of my constituency relies on this water from Ness.

I read a very interesting article in the Yorkshire Post which it is worth quoting: Mr. T. G. S. Green, the river authority's water resources engineer"— that is the authority by which the hon. Member for Brightside was briefed— says that the abstraction of water from the sandstone could well make it unnecessary to construct surface regulating reservoirs or at least postpone the time when surface reservoirs have to be built. Use of the underground water could obviate the need for additional surface reservoirs for possibly 10 years. That report from Mr. Green is dated 23rd February, 1970. It seems a very timely remark. It is a pity that he did not persuade the hon. Member for Bright-side that this Bill is unnecessary on the argument of the water resources engineer of the Yorkshire Ouse and River Hull authority.

From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I gather that Scarborough requires more water. But Scarborough already draws four million gallons a day from this natural lake at Irton. If Scarborough wants more water, all that it has to do is sink another borehole in that natural lake. No one will stop it doing that. Then, if it can afford it, it can pipe a supply wherever it is required.

Sheffield and Hull are to extract from the Derwent at Elvington and Barnby. Has not extraction from the Ouse north of York been considered? It is interesting to note the river authority estimate of river flows at Skelton, north of York. Although the flow has been measured from 1956, all that it has been able to give is an estimated mean flow and not a minimum flow. The estimated mean flow at Skelton is 580 million gallons a day. I am interested in that because, as an hon. Member representing a constituency in that area which is constantly flooded, I would be grateful if some of the water could be taken away. If the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) were here, he, too, would agree to a great quantity of water, which could be regulated, being taken from the Ouse down to Sheffield and, if necessary, Hull. We would much rather that it was stored there, too, than in my constituency.

I have been worried by one or two of the methods used by the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority. I was glad that the hon. Member for Brightside did not adopt any of the methods used in the Press in the last few days. On Friday, the clerk to the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority was reported in the Yorkshire Post as saying: There are not as many people opposed to the scheme as one might think. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, for example, are not opposing us. I thought that the hon. Member for Brightside was trying to insinuate that the Council for the Protection of Rural England was in favour of it. To clear up the point, perhaps I might read a letter from that body dated 4th March: The Council for the Protection of Rural England regards the proposed Farndale reservoir as a most undesirable intrusion on the landscape of the North York Moors National Park and agrees with its Ryedale Branch (from whom you may have heard) that the scheme should not be allowed to proceed until alternative sources of supply have been further investigated. Among these we will include desalination and barrage schemes, in both of which progress has been disappointingly slow. It was not very helpful for the clerk to go on record as saying that the Council for the Protection of Rural England had no objection to the scheme. Certainly it caused a great deal of worry to those who are supporters of the Council when the charge was made that it did not oppose the scheme.

There was an even worse instrusion in the Yorkshire Post from the vice-chairman of the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority only on Monday. In a letter, Alderman Sir Harry Hardy wrote: As a boy I experienced the breath-taking beauty of Farndale. I cycled to Gillamoor and enjoyed the unbounded hospitality and the delightful fellowship of the Simpson family at The Farm. This Judas-like approach goes on: Water from underground could reduce the supply of surface water. That letter is from the vice-chairman of a river authority which has been spending £100,000 to research into these underground resources. Having just made that announcement, he says: Water from underground could reduce the supply of surface water. He goes on: The hydrogen ion content of underground water may be unsuitable for human consumption"— or for certain industries.

This is from a river authority which has known for 20 years about this natural lake and that the Ryedale Joint Water Board has been pumping water out of it.

I am afraid that there is a shadier side to this. In November the Ryedale Joint Water Board applied to the river authority for permission to sink another borehole at Keld Head to get another two million gallons per day. Although it applied in November, there has been no decision. It cannot get No; it cannot get Yes. However, it is told that it cannot be done because it might interfere with the fish hatchery investment of the river authority on the Costa. Is this really what is behind this attack on underground water resources—that above that natural lake the river authority, wisely or unwisely, has invested a certain amount of money in a fish hatchery? Is this why it is neglecting the easiest, cheapest and most modern way of getting water? My constituents and I think that it is dishonourable that we should suffer rather than that the fish hatchery should be moved. I believe that this is the secret behind what has been actuating people with the Bill.

I have been asked: why have not more people objected to the Bill? Let us get the facts right. The Ryedale Joint Water Board is the only petitioner against the Bill at this stage in the House of Commons. It is petitioning against it principally because it objects, among other things, to having its water stolen from it, its pipeline and its treatment works moved, and to the charging scheme which has to be settled in this House. But the North Riding County Council, the National Farmers' Union, the Kirkby-moorside Rural District Council and about 15 other authorities have reserved their rights to object in the House of Lords.

I apologise for the presentation of our opposition to the Bill. We have not been able to send round glossy pamphlets, because these 10,930 people are not wealthy. In this rural district the product of a penny rate is £354. To fight the Calderdale Bill the local rural district council was nearly beggared. There is something terribly wrong with this method of having to oppose, but there is opposition from all the people of Farndale amongst the many petitions that I have. Of the 100 people who live in the Farndale area, 98 have signed the petition begging the House to turn down the Bill.

I object to the Bill on behalf of my constituency, which will be ravished and drowned by the Bill, and on behalf of my constituents who will lose their farms and livelihood for inadequate compensation. If at times it is right that the few should be sacrified for the many it is certainly unusual to find that the few are being forced to contribute to the costs of their sacrifice. I believe that this sacrifice is unnecessary.

I have support for that view from those who instigated this petition. I know this area. I was born and bred in the hills just north of Farndale. This is a corner of England which is at present unspoilt. I know that if the Bill is passed tonight we will be spoiling this corner of England for ever for no good reason, because the plan is out of date and there are more modern ways for Sheffield, Hull and the West Riding getting the water that they require.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. George Darling (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Until the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) got towards the end of his speech I was very much in agreement with him. If this scheme had been to provide an impounding reservoir anywhere in Lancashire, Yorkshire or the North of England I should have opposed it as I opposed the Calderdale scheme. But here we have the right kind of proposal—let us forget the Farndale Reservoir for a moment, although I know it is difficult—because the water that will be taken for the benefit of industry and domestic consumers in the industrial areas of Humberside and the West Riding is to be abstracted from rivers. This is the right way to do it.

I have been perfectly consistent about this matter for many years, since I saw the original Yorkshire Derwent scheme that was undertaken by Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was a member of, I think it was called, the waterworks committee of the Sheffield City Council. When I went to see that scheme in operation and talked to the water engineers, I was convinced that there was no need to go on impounding reservoirs in the North of England. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is plenty of water on both sides of the Pennines, both underground and in rivers, that can be used to provide all the supplies needed by industry and domestic consumers.

The only difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself is whether we should take the word of the water engineers attached to the appropriate authority that they require a regulating reservoir for this new scheme of abstracting more water from the River Derwent.

The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a number of authorities to show that there is plenty of underground water available. He has referred to a natural underground lake. I do not know whether the water is there or not in the quantity which he has said, but that is not my problem.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the way to regulate the supplies which will be taken from the river is by bore-holes and pots. I do not know whether this is the right way. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not trying to be rude when I say that I do not know whether I have to take his word for it. I am taking the word of the engineers associated with this scheme, who say that there must be a surface regulatory reservoir. If that is so, where should the reservoir be?

Mr. Turton

I did quote the water resources engineer of the very authority which is promoting the Bill. He said that, if the underground resources were used, the reservoirs could be postponed for 10 years.

Mr. Darling

If the person concerned is associated with the promoters of the Bill, why do they say that there must be a regulatory surface reservoir? I must take their word for it. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about his constituents. We have half a million people in Sheffield whose livelihood depends largely on an expansion of the steel and heavy engineering industries there. They will require more and more water every year. I want to maintain their standards of living, and I want them to be much more prosperous, and I am sure that that cannot happen unless the natural resources on which their industries depend can be provided in full for them.

Again, we want social improvements, not only in Sheffield but throughout the West Riding. This calls for more and more water. In parts of my constituency, 60 per cent. of the houses do not have inside baths. If they are provided, they will use more water, and they must be provided. This is the kind of social improvement which we need. Therefore, neither I nor my constituents can wait 10 years for some guarantee that the water supplies they want will come along. So I will vote for the Second Reading, and I hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading.

But I agree with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton in this, that we must be convinced that a surface regulatory reservoir is needed to make this scheme workable and practicable, and that it must be at Farndale. I too dislike this way of considering Bills of this kind. I support the Bill for obvious reasons. I think that it is the right kind of scheme. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not disagree with me in principle that the water is coming from a river rather than from an impounding reservoir, but he has legitimate objections to the scheme. He has to ask for a vote of this House, of 630 Members—although not all of us will vote—but how many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen really understand what is involved?

If the principle is accepted that we do not build unnecessary impounding reservoirs, which I think the House should accept, we must discuss schemes of this kind—which we now accept in principle—in detail. Let us be honest: we are not fully equipped to do this. We should have committees to examine, with the help of conflicting experts if necessary, before we come to a matter of this kind. Anyway, we are stuck with the procedures which we have to adopt.

I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and that when it is considered these questions will be answered. Do we need a surface regulatory reservoir? If so, is Farndale Valley, taking everything into consideration—the natural amenities and so on—the right place for it? We must be satisfied on these points before the Bill is finally passed.

But, because I speak not just for Sheffield but for some three, four or five million residents of industrial towns whose livelihood largely depends, because of the nature of their industries, on an increasing supply of water, I think that the Bill should have a Second Reading.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) observed in a very fair speech, it is not easy to understand in full the sort of detail which we are discussing in this proposed scheme, although I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) showed a fair grasp of the matter not only in principle but in detail as well.

Although I shall be regarded as an interloper by the society of Yorkshiremen who are gathered here tonight, I intend to oppose the Bill because I have a profound affection for the Farndale Valley and a profound distrust for the pragmatic, hand-to-mouth water resources policy which we are now pursuing.

I have also some regard for our national parks policy, which cannot survive if we knock holes in it whenever it is presented that over-riding public interests make this necessary. I think I am right in saying that this will be the third time that the national park which is constituted by the North Yorkshire Moors has been kicked in the teeth in this way. First we had Fylingdales, with over-riding considerations in favour of that. Then we had the boring for potash. Then we are to have this reservoir, 8,000 million gallons.

Always the most compelling need was made for these breaches. I would say it is a disastrous policy, not only for national parks and those who control them but in a sense for the Government as well because it leads to a cynical attitude as to how they behave when it suits them.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell)

The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I hope, that the policy which is being pursued is in pursuance of the Water Resources Act, which was the policy of the Government of which he was a member.

Mr. Deedes

I am coming to this point in just a moment. I am quite aware, as is the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), that a reservoir was proposed here many years ago, before it even became a national park. Although he said it is the same site, he will agree with me that the size in question differs considerably from the size that was under consideration in 1933, and that is one of the points at issue.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has already made a detailed case against this proposal, but has given in pretty fair measure the alternatives which could be pursued. I merely want to put forward the grounds on which I think a reasonable man, without the advantage of being a Yorkshire Member, might oppose the Bill.

Every time a reservoir of this kind is proposed, as we heard when the Calder-dale scheme was being discussed, it turns out to be a precious corner of England. Sometimes it is. I happen to think Farndale is. I am tolerably familiar with every site in England and Wales which is threatened with this type of flooding because I take a great interest in this. I hope that the Farndale Valley and its nature reserve will not be flooded. I have known it for 30 years, and I endorse every word that my right hon. Friend who represents it has put forward on its behalf. There is a touch of magic about the place, or there soon will be when the miniature daffodils are in bloom. There will not be much left of that when 8,000 million gallons of water fill the valley.

On the national park point, I refer to a passage from the fifth annual report of the Water Resources Board for 1968. It says on national parks, referring to the Dartmoor scheme, but the principle holds: We have not altered our policies with regard to national parks. We declared it in paragraph 96 in the 1965 annual report and we repeat it here. In view of the purposes for which the national parks were designated, there must be a strong initial presumption against any development which might damage their appearance or interfere with public access. We fully accept this. Indeed, there may well be certain areas which should be held against any development. It goes on: On the other hand, the total area of parks covers too much of the country to be regarded as sacrosanct from any change. It concedes that there are areas which ought not to be treated in that way, and I would find it difficult to find a place which responds to that better than the Farndale Valley.

Since we debated Calderdale recently and in view of the result, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has been flexing his muscles a bit, and he says there is, in effect, no alternative to this policy. His warning was that we must not look to larger and perhaps vaguer ideas outside the lines of present policy. Indeed, I understand that there is some talk—I hope that the Minister will refer to this—of amending the 1963 Act to save the promoters of this sort of Bill the indignity of rejection. Of course, people who promote these campaigns do not like rejection.

On the wider issue of studies, I have been looking closely at the stewardship of the Water Resources Board, and I call attention to the board's expenditure on research. In 1966–67 it amounted to £31,000. In 1967–68 it was £41,000. The estimated total for 1968–69 is £125,000, but as there was a shortfall on estimated expenditure last year, I doubt whether that figure will have reached above £100,000.

It is worth recalling that that represents the price of, say, 10 graduates or one-tenth of the amount that I.C.I. would spend in one division of its organisation, Yet we are talking of research expenditure on our total water resources. We are, therefore, spending an absurdly small sum on what the board describes as something that will become an increasingly important part of its work; that is, research.

How far does the board use the research that is done by other people? I am not advocating a vast increase in the public bill on research, but it would be interesting to know what the board does with other people's research on, for example, desalinisation. Research has been, and is, going on into some promising spheres, such as the barrage concept. There is one barrage which could apply particularly in respect of this scheme. Is research being pursued with anything like enough energy and imagination? I fear that as long as schemes of this sort come before the House and as long as the Act permits them, research into these matters will be half-hearted.

We are really dealing with two resources. I accept what has been said about thirsty constituents; and, when it suits our book, we must support schemes which will provide natural resources for industry and, more important, domestic use. While I accept that water is a major requirement, we must not forget that places like Farndale are national assets and that there is a need for conservation in both senses of the word.

We cannot go on in this ham-fisted way, and certainly we cannot adopt schemes of this sort by taking a rubber-stamp attitude. We cannot go on wasting water in the way we are, neglecting serious research and clobbering areas like Farndale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton illustrated the wastage of water, and when one looks at this whole issue in modern terms one appreciates the way in which we are progressing backwards.

The Minister's job is to call a halt to this procedure. He should not be giving another turn of the screw. He should stop any bullying of rural areas such as this and accept that we must reconcile our water needs with our resources and that we cannot conduct research into this enormous sphere for £100,000 a year. If the Bill is defeated, as I hope it will be, it may convince water authorities that we will not accept this sort of approach any longer and that the House affirms that, in future, our water resources will be considered in the right sort of way.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

I must at the outset make a minor protest about the length of time taken by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in speaking against the Bill. He must have known that a large number of hon. Members wished to contribute to this important debate and that only a short time was available for them in which to do so.

Not only do I speak of the length of time he took but of the arguments he used. For example, he concluded by saying that he opposed the Measure for several reasons, including the fact that he was against drowning his constituents. That was surely an exaggeration! If there were any question of drowning any hon. Member's constituents I would vote against the Bill. Nobody will be drowned and it is an exaggeration to talk in those terms on such an important occasion as this.

The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of several thousand signatures which had appeared on petitions. He mentioned that signatures had come from places like London. I wonder how many people who signed in London and in areas outside those which are directly concerned with this scheme knew about the Bill, its purpose, and also of the needs of the area? Or did they sign merely because they were asked to do so by certain national bodies which are concerned with interests which have nothing to do with water supplies?

Because of the shortness of time and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate, I will be brief. I will, therefore, concentrate on the reasons why the Bill is of immense importance in the general context of national water needs. Time and again hon. Members have drawn attention to the important issue of the provision of adequate water supplies for our growing population and for our growing standard of living. Tremendous quantities of water are and will continue to be required to maintain this standard, for industrial development and so on.

The House is very well aware of this argument and it is not therefore necessary to go over it again. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton drew attention to table F in the board's report and said that the shortage of water in this area would be only 40 million gallons a day in 1981. If the right hon. Member looks again at the table he will find that in 2,001, which sounds a long way off but is only 31 years off, it is estimated that that will already have grown to 185 million gallons a day, and this indicates the measure of the problem which we are having to face.

I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said about the unsatisfactory way in which great issues of this kind, affecting not only the immediate or the future needs of large populations in a particular part of the country but the whole country itself, are dealt with at this time of night with this rather desultory attendance in the House. I agree with what he said about how much better it would be if we could give more detailed attention to the arguments for and against the report of the Water Resources Board and the other bodies concerned for a much longer period and in much more detail. This is precisely what we who support the Bill are asking the House to do.

We are asking the House to agree with those hon. Members like my right hon. Friend and those hon. Members who have doubts about this Bill and Bills of this kind that it is not enough to dispose of them one way or another in a three hour debate at this time of night. Such Bills require more careful examination in the interests of all concerned, from the Ramblers' Association to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England through to the people concerned—that is the consumers of water in the area. All we are asking is that we should give the Bill a Second Reading tonight and give it an opportunity of being thoroughly examined in Committee. I was rather surprised to hear a few titters when it was said that the Bill could usefully be dealt with in Committee. I do not see why, because this is what many of those hon. Members who oppose this rushing through of Bills are suggesting—that they should be receive detailed attention.

The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) that in 1933 Kingston upon Hull Corporation acquired the powers to build such a reservoir and that it is still empowered to build that reservoir and will be for many years to come even if this Bill is defeated. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that we had surely progressed since 1933, and this is precisely what we have done. This is precisely what is made clear in the report of the Water Resources Board, where it points out that the developments in modern technology and means of dealing with these matters have reached the point where we can utilise what was accepted as a desirable scheme in 1933, and for which the powers now exist with very little change in the disturbance of amenities, to supply many more times the amount of water, and not only for Kingston upon Hull, but areas as far apart as Sheffield, Barnsley, Scarborough and Rotherham. This would involve about 84 million gallons a day, as against 18 million gallons a day with very little, if any, additional disturbance of the local area or of the countryside.

This is really the point. We could force Kingston upon Hull to go ahead with this on its own. I do not actually think that it would do it, because it would be a complete denial and frustration of the 1963 Act which was passed by the previous Government and which gave the Water Resources Board the responsibility and duty to deal with the resources not on a purely local area basis. It would not go back to the bad old past, where a central city could supply adequate water and dispose of it where it wished, but to have a planned development of our total water supplies. This, so far as the North of England is concerned, is what has been done according to this remarkable report.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to certain alternatives, and made great play with them. I have heard this argument used many times. When the Calderdale Bill was turned down, it was argued by the supporters of the project that there was no alternative, but suddenly they found an alternative in the Farndale scheme. I should have thought that that emphasised the urgency of the need of the Calderdale area to turn to some other alternative, because there is always an alternative if one looks for it. The question is whether the alternatives are practicable, economic, and generally desirable.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the exploitation of underground water, and purported to quote from the 1969 report of the river board. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was only paraphrasing because I have here the report of the river authority, and this is what it says about ground water resources: There would appear to be useful surpluses in the Pennines sub-catchments … but one would hesitate to suggest systematic exploitation of these surpluses. They are of great value in maintaining base flow which provides dilution of industrial effluents and the character of the aquifers is such that many boreholes would be required … The report goes on to deal with the Don Valley below Doncaster and says that there would appear to be a still more useful surplus in sub-catchment No. 9, and especially in the Triassic sandstone, and that this will warrant further investigation. It then says: The Triassic sandstones of sub-catchments Nos. 23 and 24"— which is basically the area with which we are dealing— show considerable"— not adequate, or even substantial,— ground water surpluses which merit further attention being given to them. It is true that the river board came to that conclusion then, and so has the Water Resources Board. There is no difference between them. The Water Resources Board is making these further investigations which were suggested at that early stage when the full facts were not known. As regards the main area, the Triassic sandstones areas 23 and 24, I understand that if, as it is hoped, it is possible fully to exploit such resources, they will be used to supplement the rivers Swale and Ure and supply water to Leeds and Bradford, and therefore have no contribution to make to this scheme.

The right hon. Gentleman referred also to what I gather was his experience in the Western Desert, or somewhere in Africa, where he says—

Mr. Turton

The hon. Gentleman has avoided reading the recommendation with regard to the Bill. Will he read recommendation 10 on page 41 of the report, which refers to this area, and not to the Don Valley or some other area?

Mr. Hynd

I was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that adequate supplies were available, and I read what was said about that. However, I shall do as the right hon. Gentleman asks and read the recommendation on page 41. It says: Underground water in the Vale of Pickering. It is recommended that investigations be made into the hydrogeology of the Jurassic strata in the Vale of Pickering with a view to the possibility of regulating the Derwent with water abstracted from these strata by means of boreholes. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to draw attention to that, because that is what the Water Resources Board is doing.

These matters require considerable investigation. I do not pretent to be an engineer, or to say that the investigations are adequate, but the board has a duty and a responsibility placed on it by the House to apply all the technical knowledge that is available to get the proper answers to these questions, and the question that is posed requires further investigation.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I accept his argument, but will he not follow a little further the point he is making? Surely, before we make a decision we should have explored the alternatives very fully. This is what the Water Resources Board are doing, and one applauds them for financing this very expensive scheme. Why not wait until we have the results of the inquiry before taking a decision which is quite irrevocable?

Mr. Hynd

I do not want to read out the report of the Water Resources Board, but the hon. Gentleman will find the reasons adequately stated. On the urgency of the scheme, there is a summary of projects on page 39 which does not mention Calderdale. The report says there are four groups of projects to be completed as soon as possible to meet urgent needs, and so on; and in the list of projects to be completed as soon as possible Farndale reservoir and Derwent are described as a matter of the first urgency.

Hon. Members have pointed out that this is not going to be done tomorrow, next week or next year. This is an operation which will take a considerable time and there will be ample time for investigating long-term alternatives which can be used to supplement these proposals. I was fascinated by the reference to the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in the African desert, where I gather he was told that there was no water available to which he said that if they dug holes deep enough they would find water. The answer, I imagine, was that if that was so Colonel Nasser would not have the Aswan Dam.

It seems curious, because the boring of water holes in the desert is not new. It has been done by the Italians for a number of years. But these things are done at great inconvenience and expense, where there is no alternative. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of desalination. In Kuwait they have plenty of fresh water for a small population. Because of the oil resources hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on desalination plans which it would be silly for us to build round the highways and bye ways of this country. In my view, these are not at all practicable alternatives.

The main argument generally used against this and which was used by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me is that of amenity. This can be an extremely strong argument. It has been used time and again on all kinds of water development schemes. In this case, however, it does not seem to be so relevant as in many others. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. E. Griffiths) quoted the Countryside Commission's comments on this. He referred to the Ryedale branch of the C.P.R.E. whose board agreed that it was a desirable project and would not spoil the amenities but could enhance them; at which the right hon. Gentleman laughed very loudly. But the fact is that the North Yorkshire National Park, to which he referred, was planned in anticipation and consideration of just this kind of reservoir development under the 1933 Act. This was part of what was authorised in establishing the national park.

Furthermore, I can quote from an example in my own area. Many years ago Sheffield developed the Ladybower Reservoir which involved the submersion of a village and created a large lake. There were protests against this before it was done. It was argued that it would spoil the amenities, but it has so enhanced the amenities that for years the Sheffield City Council has been running bus excursions to the lake as one of the great attractions of the Sheffield area. Possibly the same could be said of a number of similar areas. But the evidence given here by the Countryside Commission and a whole range of other organisations—and I cannot judge for myself, I go by the evidence—is that instead of spoiling amenities this would provide the only lake for many miles in the area and possibly probably add very considerably to the amenities and attractions.

The Ramblers' Association in its protest referred to the large number of people and cars who might be attracted and used this as an argument against the development. I can hardly imagine that a large number of people in cars would be attracted to a site of this kind if the amenities were destroyed. Normally, tourists and others are attracted to this kind of area because its amenities have been enhanced. The Association should consider just what it is arguing—whether too many people will benefit or too few.

In the 1963 Act, we gave the Water Resources Board the responsibility of safeguarding and developing the water resources of the country—one of the most urgent problems we have to face in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. It is doing that job very efficiently. It has produced ample evidence of the desirability of this scheme, which is much more important than many of the other schemes which have come before the House. It would be a tragedy if we were to frustrate the purpose for which we passed the Act and all the work, energy and responsibility of the Board by refusing to give Parliament an opportunity to discuss the Bill in detail. I hope that there will be a considerable majority in favour of the Bill.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

It would be wrong for me to take up much time in intervening. I am sure that the House would like the guidance of the Minister on some of the points raised.

In considering the Bill, it is very important to distinguish the two schemes—first, the reservoir at Farndale and, second, the sluices at Barnby. With regard to the reservoir, once again the House is faced with a Bill which seeks to put an area of great natural beauty, in a national park, under water. As before when we have discussed Bills of this kind, we are amateurs on the subject. I do not mean that in any derogatory sense because a decision by amateurs can be much sounder than that of experts if, and only if, that decision is founded on information provided by the experts.

I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, that we need a far greater expenditure on money and resources on research so that we in this House may be better able to come to a decision on a subject of this sort. Despite the mass of figures with which we have been bombarded, we are still without sufficient information because of the insufficiency of research in this subject.

The alternatives to the reservoir have been put very forcibly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and I am sure that the House was impressed by the alternative he gave—the extraction of water by means of sluices, coupled with the use of the natural underground lake. The figures he gave were impressive, and obviously everyone would have hoped that that sort of combination of the two parts of the scheme could have come about without the use of Farndale as a reservoir.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the facts given by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) should carry greater weight in the overall assessment of the problem than those of the Water Resources Board?

Mr. Page

I do not think, with all respect to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), that there is anything contradictory here. The figures given by my right hon. Friend are given by experts. The Water Resources Board has given its opinion on those figures. It is for this House to decide, as far as it can, between the experts on this subject. All I was saying was that obviously everyone would prefer that an area of natural beauty should not be put under water if there is another way of getting that water.

The proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton must have impressed the House very considerably.

This brings me to the second part of the scheme—the sluices. That appeals to me as a trend in the right direction in the development of the water resources of the country. It is a pointer, I hope, to future national policy on development of our water resources. I would like to see much more development of the barrage, the estuarial scheme and that method of providing water. But as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said, one opinion is that one must have a regular reservoir in such a place. If there were the alternative of not a surface reservoir but an underground lake we should all be happy to use it, but we need more research on this.

I hope the Minister will be able to say that the Government will encourage the allocation of resources to research, because again and again it has come forward in these debates that we are guessing at the right course. No firm policy has been put before us yet, although the recent report of the Water Resources Board has given us some indication of a possible national policy which I hope the Minister will be able to say the Government will develop.

While we go on debating these Bills piecemeal it is very difficult for the House to decide one way or the other. The Calderdale Water Bill comes forward and we defeat it; the Derwent Water Bill comes forward and we may pass it. This is not the right way to legislate on the water resources of this country. It is becoming more and more important, and I urge the Minister to assure the House, first, that we shall have some indication of a national policy on this and, second, that extensive resources will be devoted to this in future.

9.7 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell)

It is perhaps convenient to intervene at this stage to give the House some guidance about the involved, difficult and even passionate considerations which hon. Gentlemen are bound to bring to these questions.

All of us would want to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) for the way in which he stated his case, even though some of us, including myself, are not able to accept his conclusions.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) have spoken on research. This is a very fair point indeed. If the right hon. Member for Ashford does not mind my saying so, even the figures he gave show that, starting from scratch a few years ago, the water authorities are building up their research programme very considerably. If one has any experience involving the mounting of research one knows that it is a very difficult thing to get going.

In addition to the figures, the House will be interested to know, in order to set the record straight, that on desalination alone we spent £3 million in research in the last four years, and the Water Resources Board has spent £500,000 in researching into the question of the Morecambe barrage. Perhaps I am a little loth politically to pay tribute to hon. Gentlemen opposite but I think I can do it since I was involved throughout the Committee stage and I took a great interest in the Water Resources Act 1963, which went through with the agreement of both sides of the House.

If ever there was a justification for the initiative which the previous Administration took in practice, it is working out now in the policies of the Water Resources Board, which is doing exactly the opposite of what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton accused it of doing. working from hand-to-mouth. It is exactly the opposite of hand-to-mouth policies with which we are presented. When it finishes its impressive researches. Ministers of the future will have far more knowledge on which to take decisions, and all the things which the House wants will be possible as a result of this activity. I accept that the need for this scheme has to be shown overwhelmingly to allow this Bill to go forward. Having spent even more time looking into this matter since my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made his tremendous oration only a week of two ago, and having looked at this matter in more detail than any proposal before, I am convinced of the overwhelming case for this Bill to have a Second Reading. On the question of need there could hardly be any doubt. The deficiencies in the area of Yorkshire and the River Ouse will be 45 million gallons a day by 1981 and 187 million gallons a day by 2001.

Sheffield and Hull Corporations represent very important conurbations in the industrial life of this country. To run any risk of grave water shortages in those areas would be a very serious matter. Although part of the responsibility is on the promoters and hon. Members on this side of the House to show need, it is also fair to say that part of the responsibility on the other side of the House is to show that there will be no serious risk if this Bill is rejected tonight. I do not think that proposition can be sustained.

Mr. Turton

I quoted from Table F of the report we had last week. There the figures were 40 million and 65 million gallons. Those are different from the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. Are his figures correct?

Mr. Howell

The figures I have quoted on the best advice I have are the correct figures. I shall come back to some of the quotations made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he was a little selective in his quotations, and less than fair in some of the things he said.

I am dealing with growth in the need for water. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) rightly said that every time a corporation goes in for slum clearance, consumption of water goes up. Industry itself requires more and more water. It is extremely significant that the Confederation of British Industry has expressed the view very strongly that the Bill is necessary in the interests of industry in the Sheffield conurbation.

We estimate that the growth rate of need for water in Sheffield and the partner towns of Barnsley and Rotherham is about 2.3 per cent. and in Hull, bearing in mind the projected Humberside development, about 3 per cent. a year. These are not extravagant estimates. In 1969 both these undertakings had surpluses of less than 10 per cent. of their reliable yields. Sheffield had a surplus of 5 million gallons out of 55 million gallons a day and Hull less than 2½, million gallons out of 27 million gallons a day. Those surpluses in these circumstances are very marginal and make the case. On those figures alone, Sheffield, Barnsley and Rotherham will be going into deficit by 1973, and Hull by 1972. That is a very serious situation, and we should be very loth to interfere with anything that will put water supplies in those areas in serious jeopardy.

There are additional demands coming. There are the new potash developments in North Yorkshire, which require the regulation of the Esk.

Mr. Michael Shaw (Scarborough and Whitby)

May we assume that that is an assertion that they will happen, or may happen?

Mr. Howell

It is an assertion that if we add that need to the needs of the towns I have mentioned, the total requirement by 1981 will be for a further 28 million gallons of water a day.

A tremendous degree of attention has been paid to the Bill, and rightly so. One does not complain about it. If there were the overwhelming objection from the numbers of people suggested I believe that we should have more than the one petition from the Ryedale Joint Water Board, which has a right to draw the attention of the House to its contentions and to have them examined.

Mr. Graham Page

I understand that about 15 authorities have reserved their right to petition in the other House, which is normal procedure.

Mr. Howell

Indeed they have, and their petitions can be dealt with if they come, but if they had the burning sense of indignation which has been suggested they would possibly have petitioned in both Houses. On the one side there is the Ryedale Joint Water Board and on the other the very strong support for the proposals by the Water Resources Board, which I think we all agree is approaching its task in a very responsible manner.

The question of amenity has very fairly been raised by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and other right hon. Members. I am advised that the river authority has been very closely in touch with all the amenity bodies. Rarely have proposals been so widely canvassed with all the amenity bodies—the North York Moors National Park Planning Committee, the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy, the Ramblers Association, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the East Yorkshire Conservation Committee, and—most important of all—the North Advisory Council for Sport and Recreation. The river authority has made it clear to all those bodies that their points on amenity and recreational use will be taken very fully into account.

I listened to the great eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of daffodils. I am advised that most of the area of daffodils will be protected by bye-laws and will be either below or around the dam site. If that happens the area will be Wordsworth personified. We shall have the daffodils Beside the lake, beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing in the breeze. This is surely the classic, traditional place for us to view our daffodils and get the maximum enjoyment from them.

I am told that 15 alternative sites have been examined exhaustively. Therefore one must conclude that the promoters of the Bill have taken every reasonable precaution to find the best possible site and have all the alternatives examined. I am told that of the 15 there is only one viable alternative to Farndale. That is the lower Rosedale site on the River Severn, which I am told would be vigorously opposed by the Countryside Commission. No doubt this is the reason for the rejection of that site.

The right hon. Gentleman spent a little time on the subject of ground water, and he has consistently pursued this in the House. He talked about the availability of well over 700 million gallons a day and quoted from a technical report of the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull River Authority. He did not quote from the survey accompanying the technical report. If he looks at pages 30 and 31 of that report he will see it is said that these are theoretical amounts. There is no firm indication that they are there. The report says: Useful developments cannot be made when none of the conditions are fulfilled, and indeed to attempt the theoretical field development could well he prohibitively expensive. If we add prohibitive expense to the theory of the matter the report takes on an entirely different light.

I am told that it is likely that these underground resources sustain the flows in rivers such as the Derwent and Hull. A recent study and pilot schemes in the Thames and Great Ouse areas support this. The river authority has recently carried out a survey of the local resources and demands under Section 14 of the Water Resources Act 1963 and initiated a survey of the ground water resources. It is interesting to see what the possibilities are but estimates that it will take our years to produce results. It is clear that we cannot possibly afford to allow lull and Sheffield to wait so long.

I am advised that the main point about ground water is that it is notoriously an uncertain quantity until it has been exhaustively tested. This is bound to take a long time.

The other possible alternative mentioned has been desalination. Desalination for Sheffield would, clearly, be out of the question. It might be possible for Hull. An estimate has been made of the cost of supplying Hull with 12 million gallons a day by desalination. Production costs, if this proved possible, would be 10s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons compared with—

Mr. Peter M. Jackson


Mr. Howell

That is the advice I have.

Mr. Jackson

I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Question I tabled recently to the Ministry of Technology asking for the cost of various desalination techniques. If he looks at this he will see that the figure per 1,000 gallons is much less than 10s. 6d.

Mr. Howell

I ask about this today to get up-to-date figures, and this is the production cost of obtaining water from the sea for Hull. I will look into my hon. Friend's point, but I am told that it is 10s. 6d. a 1,000 gallons compared with the cost under this scheme of 4s. 3d. a 1,000 gallons. The economy is, clearly, a significant factor.

A Humber barrage was mentioned, but I am told that it would be inappropriate because of the poor quality of the water available. The conclusion we reached is that, if one is looking for an economic, effective scheme, there is no reasonable alternative to the one that is before the House.

In view of the serious risks which would be inherent in failing to give the Bill a Second Reading, I could not possibly advise the House to put in jeopardy large numbers of people in industrial areas who help to sustain the nation. The proper place for the examination of arguments of detail is in Committee, when all parties can make their case or make inroads into their opponent's case. That is the proper procedure to adopt, and I should be very loth to see the Bill not given the Second Reading which it clearly deserves.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

The Minister has spoken firmly in favour of the Bill and persuaded many doubting hon. Members on this side of the House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading. May I be the first Conservative to give unqualified support to the Bill.

The Minister referred to the 1963 Water Resources Act. He and I both served on the Committee during the passage of that Bill, and there was a degree of agreement on both sides of the Committee. I have been dissatisfied with the progress made by the Water Resources Board and its advisers and I have expressed a certain amount of disappointment, if not dissatisfaction. I had hoped that the proposals for the barrages at Morecambe Bay and Solway would have made better progress.

The Minister touched on desalination, and I share his view that, in terms of cost, it appears to be a long way off, but I hope there will be some imaginative proposals to include desalination programmes.

I find it difficult, in looking at this as an abstract problem, to be honest from a scientific and technological point of view and not appear to be prejudiced in backing a Bill which favours Sheffield. As evidence has come forward in the last few weeks, I have decided to give the Bill my unqualified support. May I give a few reasons for this in the hope of persuading my hon. Friends to support the scheme. I live in the Peak district and I am conscious that, unless we use more imagination, many beauty spots in that area could also be damaged. I suggest that these proposals are exceptional and part of a long-term scheme which was devised at least 20 years ago. May I give the background to Sheffield's water supplies.

As the Minister said, the requirement of Sheffield is for 56 million gallons a day; 72 million gallons in total, allowing for compensation. In the 19th century and over the years, Sheffield obtained its water from impounding reservoirs in the hills to the west. In 1899 Sheffield entered into partnership with Derby, Leicester and Nottingham, resulting in an arrangement whereby Sheffield had 25 per cent. of the water coming from the Derbyshire Derwent which flowed into the Trent. In 1910 a tunnel, 4¼ miles long, took water from the Howden and Derwent reservoirs into reservoirs in the Sheffield area. Today, of the 72 million gallons used, 10 million gallons are from Derbyshire. Soon after the opening of the compensating reservoir at Ladybower, Sheffield water engineers and advisers realised that Sheffield could no longer turn to the centre of England for its water.

It was obvious that impounding reservoirs in the hills in the Pennines would be required by the Midlands, particularly Derby, Nottingham and Leicester. Were there any rivers with a regular flow of water from which water could be taken near the source? Where would be a good place to look? The water engineers looked for a suitable supply of water and found the Yorkshire Derwent and developed the Elvington scheme. The scheme was approved in 1961 and in 1965 Sheffield opened the first phase of the scheme taking 15 million gallons a day. In 1968 the second stage was completed with 25 million gallons a day being taken from the sluice.

The intention of Sheffield in the Bill is to take another 15 million gallons a day, making a total of 40 million. Only half of the supply coming from this intake on the Yorkshire Derwent goes into Sheffield itself. When the scheme is implemented in phase 3, still only half of the water will be used by Hull and Sheffield and the other areas. The remainder will be used by the rest of the Yorkshire and Ouse area. Although the scheme is of value to Sheffield, half the water arising from it will be available to areas other than the major cities. I will touch on these arguments when we deal with the charging aspects, but I emphasise that the scheme is not entirely for the benefit of Hull and Sheffield.

A most important report has been issued by the Water Resources Board on water resources in the North, the most fascinating aspect of which is that the North is looked at as a whole. There are proposals for at least five schemes to transfer water from one river valley to another. This means a co-ordinated scheme among different river valleys. There is a proposal ultimately in the year 2001 that Yorkshire will receive 84 million gallons a day from Lancashire and 99 million gallons a day from the Tyne, presumably from the Otterstone reservoir if it is decided to develop it. Therefore the Farndale project features very much in the report.

Ten different proposals have been put up, four of which relate to esturial schemes, but in each of the schemes the Farndale Reservoir is a priority matter. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) said, whatever happens to all the alternatives the priority proposal is that relating to Farndale. Therefore, in terms of unified develop-men in the North the Farndale proposal has overwhelming arguments in its favour.

I will not dwell too long on the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) involving the use of boreholes. We know from what the Minister has said that there is a deficiency of some 185 million gallons a day in Yorkshire. The additional facilities as a result of this scheme will be 88 million gallons a day. It is suggested that the Ouse would have an additional intake.

Mr. Turton

My hon. Friend gave a figure that has never been given before. The Water Resources Board's figure was 47 million gallons a day. Where does my hon. Friend get his 88 million gallons a day from?

Mr. Osborn

The figure was 165 million gallons in the year 2001.

Mr. Turton

But my hon. Friend mentioned the figure of 88 million gallons. I am saying that the Water Resources Board gave a figure of 47 million gallons a day.

Mr. Osborn

The tables at which I am looking show that an additional 88 million gallons a day will become available. I will show my hon. Friend the figures afterwards.

One method of dealing with deficiencies has been the use of boreholes. The other method was to use the Ouse to a greater extent. That would take time since that would require more regulating reservoirs on the Ouse. Of course, bore-holes should ultimately be used. However, I have said that technology is changing. It would take four or five years from the survey to discover what will be the consequences of increasing the use of boreholes in the area, but this scheme should start immediately and, therefore, we cannot wait until more knowledge is available.

Sheffield and Yorkshire have a need. This scheme is a realistic one and fits in with the pattern involving the whole of the North. Because of the imaginative nature of the original concept to take water from the mouth of the Derwent before it reaches the tidal area and the extension of Barmby sluice to Hull, I think that the scheme should be supported.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

This may be a suitable moment for a word of doubt about the Bill o be uttered.

The trouble with water is that one never knows whom to believe. When the Calderdale Water Bill was before the House on 29th January, hon. Members were told that there was no alternative to the Overwood scheme. We were told that all other alternatives had been carefully examined and that, for overwhelming reasons, they had been rejected.

After this House, in its wisdom, rejected that Bill, words of grave apprehension about the future were written in the local Press. However, within five days the Calderdale Water Board had been to see the Minister with the promoters of the present Bill and had arranged to make up its estimated deficiency from the Farndale scheme. In other words, the outcome of the rejection of the Over-wood scheme was that the Calderdale Water Board found an alternative which had not been mentioned from beginning to end of the inquiry into the Calderdale Water Bill.

Mr. John Hynd

My right hon. Friend pointed out that the Calderdale people said that there were overwhelming reasons against the rejection of their scheme, yet they found an alternative when the scheme was rejected. However, their fears may be justified, judging by the opposition that there is to the present scheme.

Mr. Houghton

I am coming to the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) when he said that the opponents of the Calderdale Water Bill should be relieved that that water board had found alternative sources to supply its needs. I want to tell my hon. Friend straight away that I cannot change sides merely because my constituency, unexpectedly, has a direct interest in the Farndale scheme.

I doubted, and still doubt, whether the estimates of need were valid when they were made by the Calderdale Water Board, and I must warn my hon. Friend the Minister of State that when using the word "deficiency" he must bear in mind all the time that a deficiency is estimated on the safe reliable yield in drought conditions as opposed to the level of current consumption.

In the debate on 29th January, I questioned this basis of estimating deficiency. I have since discovered in a Report of the Central Advisory Water Committee published in 1959: To make provision for full supply in contions of extreme drought would require expenditure out of all proportion to the benefits obtained, and we have considered it right to proceed on a basis of average demand and ordinary dry year (i.e. not extreme drought) supply. At that time, that appeared to be the basis for estimating deficiency.

Since 1959 water boards have proceeded on the assumption that the safe reliable yield is the low level of resources in conditions of drought, which have occurred only three times in the last hundred years.

Although my constituency has a direct interest in the Bill, I find it impossible to give my support to it, because I am not prepared to set aside my attempt at objective appraisal of the Bill solely on constituency grounds.

Those of us who do not know the area well and have to rely on the information that the House is given to reach a conclusion are in the same boat. During the debate on the Calderdale Water Bill there was considerable impatience in the House at the piecemeal way in which we were being asked to deal with this water problem. The trouble with these Bills is that the House has not got available at the time of debate an independent technical appraisal of the scheme. We have the advantage of the judgment of the Water Resources Board and of the Minister, who, incidentally, is far more confident on this Bill than he was on the Calderdale Water Bill, which suggests that that Bill was as weak as I said it was.

Another point I must make about sending the Bill to a Committee is that the degree of searching examination of the Bill in Committee will depend upon whether the objectors can afford it, as my rural district council knows to its cost. It cost £8,000 for it to get all the necessary legal and technical aid to deal with the three weeks' hearing before a Select Committee in the House of Lords. When some of my hon. Friends, on 29th January in this House, said, "Surely you will not stop this Bill going to a Committee", I had to whisper to them, "I must, because my objectors cannot afford to go on." Indeed, the Hepton Rural District Council has had to go to the Minister for borrowing powers to meets it legal and technical bills. I do not know whether the objectors to this Bill will be able to afford the amount which will be required to put up an effective show in Committee.

Recently, the Minister has said that he is proposing to ask the House to approve an Amendment to the Water Resources Act, 1963, to make it possible to go from the Private Bill procedure on these water schemes to a public inquiry and Ministerial decision. There are arguments for and against that procedure. I should prefer strengthening the Parliamentary process on Bills of this kind rather than handing over more decisions to Ministers who will go through the same agony as we go through and may feel that it would be better for Parliament to take the responsibility which really belongs to them.

I am not setting up in business as a "reservoir buster". When the debate began I was far less certain of my position on this Bill than on the Calderdale Water Bill. Indeed, I was impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has put up an equally impressive and convincing performance. So we are faced with the dilemma: shall be take the responsibility for rejecting this Bill?

When it comes to the environment, some of us must make a stand, even to the point of being unreasonable and stubborn, in order constantly to sound the warning note about the erosion of what remains of our countryside through pollution and the other evils which are bound to creep across the landscape with a growing population with higher expectations in its standard of living.

I will finish with a quotation from the Observer newspaper on Sunday about a conference on the environment in Edinburgh: What roused the students was any sign of total commitment to tile environment, regardless of cost, and if you could throw in a remark that the System can never stomach this, so much the better. They raised the roof for Nottingham University economist Mrs. Sylvia Trench when she observed that society can only buy and sell commodities and that, because beauty is not a commodity, there is little hope for it until one can either cost beauty or overthrow commodity capitalism. That is the message which stubborn and unreasonable people give to this House. I claim to be one of them, and I must. in the circumstances, oppose the Bill.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

In the time that we have left, no one can make other than a clear and simple speech, since I believe that the supporters of the Bill have made their case, despite the moving peroration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). Like him, I am a preservationist and I put any campaign of civilised and sensitive people like himself and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) against anyone who wishes to erode the countryside. But this is not happening here. Let me take the two main points in the argument of those who oppose the Bill: first, that we are eroding the countryside, and, second, that we can get the water elsewhere.

I deny both propositions. I have studied geography and geology, and I was fascinated by the flights of fancy about this million-year-old lake in the Vale of Pickering. Like the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, I know that there was a lake there. I know about pebbles and gravels at Filey, and I know that they get out via Castle Howard, but I would question his conclusion that one has merely to sink a borehole in the Vale of Pickering to get plenty of water. I think that he said 7,000 million gallons.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted engineers on his side, but we are told, in contradistinction, that the borehole which he mentioned when he spoke of taking water from underground strata is being fed by a tributary of the Derwent. Therefore, when he speaks of going down to get water, he is merly robbing Peter to pay Paul. It emerges later; he would merely be lowering what is already a very low water table. So I deny what he said about getting his water there.

We also have heard about daffodils. I never knew that the Minister was a Wordsworth fan. If he was picking up flights of this nature, I would have thought that he might have taken up, knowing him so well, something entitled "Intimations of Immortality", which is fairly well known as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) made a fine speech in which he gave a quotation from a speech of Sir Martyn Beckett, about the Thirsk and Malton and Ryedale and Wolds area of the C.P.R.E., in which he said that it would enhance the amenities of this part of Yorkshire to have water in this valley and this national park.

We have here many leaflets sent to us by all manner of associations sporting and others, which talk of canoeing, boating, fishing, and many other activities upon this lake. I would say it is a complete myth to attempt to tell this House that we shall lose all these wonderful daffodils. I am told that the famous Daffodil Walk will be, as the Minister said, above the water level and will enhance the amenities.

The second argument was "Get the water elsewhere". There is a vital need for water in South Yorkshire. Indeed, not only North Humberside but South Humberside will need water. We were told earlier that 60 per cent. of the houses in one constituency lack baths. When I am told that there is a waste of water today, I think that there will be a lot more water used in the future when we give our people the decent amenities they need and access to a fuller life.

The whole debate, with all its exchange of millions of gallons per day, and so on, hinges about the advice given to either side in this argument. Can we depend upon our advisers? We have had statistics slung at us all evening. I would say that we are the amateurs here and we depend upon the engineers for this skilled advice. I believe the advisers to the Water Resources Board are not only skilled but dependable.

When I am asked to make my decision, I study the board's two reports. The interim report gave us a possible total deficiency in the area of nearly 60 million gallons per day by 1981, and the cardinal advice given us is that we must immediately begin work on this regulating reservoir at Farndale in order that additional water supplies shall be available to meet the deficiencies in the early 1970s. This has been backed up within the last few weeks by the additional report "Water Resources in the North". That is what I depend upon.

We have this wonderful suggestion of desalination to give us the water we need. I was in Kuwait in the early 1950s. It costs less than it did then, but I cannot imagine many wealthy oil sheikhs in East Yorkshire who would finance such a costly scheme of getting water from the sea. Indeed, I believe that the many seaside towns, like Horn-sea and Withernsea, that depend upon tourists coming, would kick against these unsightly buildings on the coast.

Again, some of my hon. Friends tell me that I can wait. I can wait for what? Morecambe Bay? Indeed, someone suggested we wait for the Wash, the Humber Barrage. We have not got time to wait for these schemes. Indeed, the Humber Barrage, if that were laid across the mouth of the Humber, would still mean delay. We have been speaking about pollution and eroding the countryside. We would have a lake there. One would not be able to dive into it, never mind use it; it would stink to high heaven with pollution, detergents and the rest being pushed into it. We in Hull and Sheffield do not have time to wait.

We were told by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton about his constituents and their difficulties. The land is owned by Hull. This valley is in a very low grade category and the authority's officers have met all the people occupying the land. They have held two public meetings to explain the proposals; the dam, the site, the planting of woodlands and so on.

I understand that a number of the present tenants now wish to retire and that several of them already work outside the valley either whole-time or part-time. Only two, three or four families now wholly employed in agriculture in the valley would be faced with the necessity to find employment elsewhere. In addition to the compensation that would be paid, additional compensation would be paid in cases of hardship. I do not believe that many constituents would kick at that.

In addition to the petition which we have seen, it is alleged that Hull and Sheffield will be the main beneficiaries. When the dam is built these areas will be the first in the queue to benefit, but many others will be immediately behind us in the queue, such as Barnsley, Wakefield and the famous Calder Valley. The potential benefits are many and there is no real alternative to this scheme.

Some hon. Members opposite may argue against this scheme from the financial point of view, although I cannot see how that case could be made when one sets off the proposed scheme against the cost of desalination and the various other methods of getting the water we need. I understand that anybody, whether or not he is a member of the N.F.U., will pay one-third of a penny more per 1,000 gallons of water. Considering that, for example, farmers are now paying 3s, for this gallonage, I cannot believe that an additional one-third of a penny will prove a burden, especially since farmers are at present—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is raising a matter

which would be more appropriate to the second debate which will take place on this issue. We have agreed to keep the two debates separate.

Mr. Johnson

I thought that I was getting near the bone, as it were, Mr. Speaker, and I return immediately to the context of the Bill.

A a Yorkshire hon. Member, I suggest that we must not be pusillanimous about this. We would have to hang our heads in shame if we did not make the utmost attempt to ensure that our constituents are guaranteed—not only our constituents in Hull and Sheffield but the population generally—a supply of good water.

On the other hand, we must safeguard this water. I hope that we have convinced those who, like myself, value the countryside, of the rightness of this scheme. Perhaps we have even convinced some of those Welsh Nationalists who are a little jealous of their water leaving Wales for Merseyside and other parts of England. Perhaps we have also convinced some of the preservationists that there will be no danger to the amenities of this lovely valley.

I see sitting below the Gangway one of my hon. Friends who lives near Hull. I am sure that, when this scheme is completed, he and I will view the daffodils by the water and will continue to regard this as a beautiful place for all to visit.

Mr. John Hynd rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 163. Noes 61.

Division No. 76.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Doughty, Charles
Alldritt, Walter Buchan, Norman Dunn, James A.
Anderson, Donald Cant, R. B. Dunnett, Jack
Armstrong, Ernest Concannon, J. D. Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Beaney, Alan Cronin, John English, Michael
Bence, Cyril Dalyell, Tam Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Bidwell, Sydney Darling, Bt. Hn. George Fernyhough, E.
Binns, John Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Finch, Harold
Bishop, E. S. Davies, Ifor (Gower) Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Blackburn, F. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Foley, Maurice
Boardman, H. (Leigh) de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Ford, Ben
Boston, Terence Dewar, Donald Forrester, John
Brooks, Edwin Dobson, Ray Fowler, Gerry
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Doig, Peter Galpern, Sir Myer
Garrett, W. E. McElhone, frank Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty) Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Hamling, William Mackie, John Rose, Paul
Harper, Joseph Maclennan, Robert Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) McNamara, J. Kevin Rowlands, E.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Haseldine, Norman Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hattersley, Roy Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) Silverman, Julius
Hay, John Mapp, Charles Slater, Joseph
Hazell, Bert Marks, Kenneth Snow, Julian
Heffer, Eric S. Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Spriggs, Leslie
Henig, Stanley Mendelson, John Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Millan, Bruce Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Hiley, Joseph Milne, Edward (Blyth) Temple, John M.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hoy, Bt. Hn. James Molloy, William Thornton, Ernest
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Tinn, James
Hunter, Adam Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Urwin, T. W.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur Moyle, Roland Varley Eric G.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Vickers, Dame Joan
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Murray, Albert Wall patrick
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Oakes, Gordon Watkins, David (Consett)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Ogden, Eric Wellbeloved, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) O'Halloran, Michael Wells, William (walsall, N.)
Judd, Frank Osborn, John (Hallam) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Kelley, Richard Oswald, Thomas Whitlock, William
Lambton, Viscount Palmer, Arthur Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Lawson, George Pannell, Ht. Hn. Charles Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Parker, John (Dagenham) Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lestor, Miss Joan Peel, John Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Pentland, Norman Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lomas, Kenneth Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Loughlin, Charles Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Woof, Robert
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
McBride, Neil Rees, Merlyn TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McCann, John Rhodes, Geoffrey Mr. John Hynd and
MacColl, James Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Michael Shaw.
MacDermot, Niall Richard, Ivor
Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n) Hooley, Frank Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Hooson, Emlyn Russell, Sir Ronald
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Hornby, Richard Sharples, Richard
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & A Fhm) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Stodart, Anthony
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Jopling, Michael Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Brewis John Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Tilney, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M) Kershaw, Anthony Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dalkeith Earl of Lee, John (Reading) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Waddington, David
Dean, Paul Lubbock, Eric Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Macdonald, A. H. Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Dickens, James Marten, Neil Wells, John (Maidstone)
Driberg, Tom Monro, Hector Wiggin, A. W.
Emery, Peter Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Pardoe, John Worsley, Marcus
Farr, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Younger, Hn. George
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Pavitt, Laurence
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert Prior, J. M. L. Mr. Albert Booth and
Hawkins, Paul Pym, Francis Mr. Marcus Kimball.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 61.

Division No. 77.] AYES [10.10 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Boston, Terence Dalyell, Tam
Alldritt, Walter Brooks, Edwin Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Anderson, Donald Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Armstrong, Ernest Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Buchan, Norman Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Beaney, Alan Cant, R. B. Dobson, Ray
Bence, Cyril Carlisle, Mark Doig, Peter
Binns, John Concannon, J. D. Doughty, Charles
Bishop, E. S. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Dunn, James A.
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Cronin, John Dunnett, Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Lomas, Kenneth Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Dun woody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Loughlin, Charles Rees, Merlyn
Emery, Peter Lubbock, Eric Rhodes, Geoffrey
English, Michael Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Richard, Ivor
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) McBride, Neil Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Fernyhough, E. McCann, John Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Finch, Harold MacColl, James Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) MacDermot, Niall Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Foley, Maurice McElhone, Frank Rowlands, E.
Ford, Ben Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross & Crom'ty) sharples, Richard
Forrester, John Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Fowler, Gerry Mackie, John Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Galpern, Sir Myer Maclennan, Robert Silverman, Julius
Garrett, W. E. McNamara, J. Kevin Slater, Joseph
Glover, Sir Douglas Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) snow, Julian
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Spriggs, Leslie
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) stainton, Keith
Hamling, William Mapp, Charles Storehouse, Bt. Hn. John
Harper, Joseph Marks, Kenneth Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Temple, John M.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mendelson, John Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Haseldine, Norman Miltan, Bruce Thornton, Ernest
Hattersley, Roy Milne, Edward (Blyth) Tinn, James
Hazell, Bert Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Urwin, T. W.
Heffer, Eric S. Molloy, William Varley, Eric G.
Henig, Stanley Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Vickers, Dame Joan
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Hiley, Joseph Moyle, Roland Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Wall, Patrick
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Watkins, David (Consett)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Murray, Albert Wellbeloved, James
Hunter, Adam Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Oakes, Gordon Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Ogden, Eric Whitlock, William
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) O'Halloran, Michael Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Osborn John (Hallam) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Oswald, Thomas Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Palmer, Arthur Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Jopling, Michael Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Judd, Frank Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Kitson, Timothy Pardoe, John Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lambton, Viscount Parker, John (Dagenham) woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Lawson, George Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Woof, Robert
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Peel, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lestor, Miss Joan Pentland, Norman Mr. John Hynd and
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Mr. Michael Shaw.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis & Tipt'n) Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert Pym, Francis
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Hay, John Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Hooley, Frank Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Hooson, Emlyn Royle, Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hornby, Richard Russell, Sir Ronald
Braine, Bernard Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Stodart, Anthony
Brewis, John Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Tilney, John
Bryan, Paul Kershaw, Anthony Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N & M) Kirk, Peter van straubenzee, W. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lee, John (Reading) Waddington, David
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Dean, Paul Macdonald, A. H. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Marten, Neil Wiggin, A. W.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Monro, Hector Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Dickens, James More, Jasper Worsley, Marcus
Driberg, Tom Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Younger, Hn. George
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Farr, John Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Pavitt, Laurence Mr. Albert Booth and
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Mr. Marcus Kimball.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Prior, J. M. L.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.