HL Deb 05 August 1909 vol 2 cc926-42

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, I venture to submit for Second Reading the Water Supplies Protection Bill. It is an important measure in many of its aspects, as it deals with a first necessity of life to man and beast and all that grows upon the ground. Notwithstanding that, I do not think that any of the clauses in the Bill are of a novel character. They all have some precedent, having received the sanction of Parliament in one form or another. I do not think it necessary to go into this matter at any length, but I may say that the hardship which it is sought to obviate by this Bill is one of long standing.

The law recognises no right of property in water below the soil, and the consequence has been that supposing A had a well on his property and B sank a well on his adjoining property to a deeper depth he might deprive A of water. But no very great harm was done in such a case, as it was possible to come to some arrangement in this matter. The case is different, however, when there appears upon the scene a company with large capital and great pumping powers which proceeds on the principle that if it has land in which to sink pumps it can with impunity take all the water from its neighbours without any compensation whatever. That, I believe, is the present state of the law. It was considered at one time that a water company could not actually deprive a stream of its water by pumping from the chalk at its head, but I believe it was decided, in the case of English v. the Metropolitan Water Board in 1897, before the Lord Chief Justice, that this could be done with impunity. Therefore the present position is practically as I have stated—namely, that these water companies who do a great public service can also do a great public disservice by drying up and sapping the land of its moisture without giving compensation to those who suffer in consequence.

This Bill has received the serious consideration of the County Council of Hertfordshire, who were largely responsible for its drafting, and it is introduced by me on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, who are unanimous as to the harm that is being done in this direction. Enormous sums of money have been spent by various corporations and individuals who are rich enough to do so in approaching Parliament and protecting their water supply. The object of this Bill is to protect those who are unable to incur this great expenditure. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the various fights that have taken place in connection with the protection of the water supply. In 1893 a Royal Com- mission was appointed to inquire into the subject. In 1896 the New River Water Company introduced a Bill; numerous petitions were presented against it, and the Bill was ultimately withdrawn. There were also very costly fights in Parliament in connection with the South Essex Water Bills of 1899 and 1900. I could quote a number of other instances. It is no exaggeration to say that the same state of things has been going on all over the country.

Parliament has recognised the right of the community to protection against the powers that water companies assume in consequence of there being no legal right in the water below the soil. In 1901 the Wolverhampton Water Bill was rejected on Second Reading largely for the reasons of the hardship which would take place if the Bill was passed into law, and in 1904 I myself opposed the Rickmansworth Water Bill, which was thrown out on Second Reading. Parliament, therefore, gave protection in those cases. There are numerous instances of protection having been given to those who had the money to apply for it, and in 1907 the Lord Chairman, in consequence of the action of Parliamentary committees and of representations from the Board of Trade, introduced a clause in the case of all water companies having Bills then in Parliament prohibiting them from using lands for the purpose of sinking wells except under the express authority of Parliament. It is sought in this Bill to extend this right of protection to all.

There are three main provisions in the Bill. The first provision is practically the Lord Chairman's clause which is now inserted in all Bills before Parliament. It provides that no water undertakers shall sink wells or construct works for obtaining their supply unless such wells and works and the sites thereof have been expressly approved by Parliament. The next provision is to amend the law with regard to underground water by providing that wherever private supplies are injured by the abstraction of water for public supply (by means of future works) the owner shall be entitled to compensation. There are various precedents for this principle as well as for the former principle. It was admitted in 1898 and in 1906, and again this year in another case the principle of compensation was admitted and inserted in Bills very much in the manner in which it appears here. The third provision in the Bill is to provide that where, by means of future works, water is taken from any district for supply to communities outside that district, the district whence the water is taken and through which it is conveyed shall be entitled to demand a share of such water for its own needs upon terms to be agreed or fixed by the Local Government Board. This principle has been recognised in the Manchester case and also in the Metropolitan Acts of 1902. These are the three main objects of the Bill, all of which, as I have said, have precedents for them.

I will now briefly go through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 2 provides that the Bill shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland, but if Scotland or Ireland desire to have it extended to them I do not anticipate any difficulty in that being done. Clause 3 is practically the Lord Chairman's clause which is now inserted in all Water Bills before your Lordships' House. Clause 4 provides compensation for injury by abstraction of water. This clause closely follows the precedent set in the South Staffordshire Bill of this year. It provides that— if any private water supply situate within any protected area…shall be diminished or injured subsequently to the construction or enlargement after the passing of this Act— these words are important as showing that it is not proposed that the Bill should be in any way retrospective— of any works of an authorised undertaker, that authorised undertaker shall (in default of proof that such diminution or injury has not been caused by such works) make full compensation. This also follows the precedent of the South Staffordshire Bill. The reason the water company is required to prove that it has not injured the well is, as will be apparent to your Lordships, that many poor people cannot afford to go to the expense of getting expert witnesses and fighting Bills in Parliament in order to obtain protection. Supposing new works of an important character are carried out by a water company and a neighbouring well suddenly goes dry, the object of this clause is that the water company, who possess experts and the necessary machinery for doing so, should prove that the sudden drying up was not due to them or to anything under their control.

Subsection (2) of Clause 4 provides that for the purposes of this section authorised undertakers shall have power to supply water outside their limits of supply and to execute and do all such works and things as may be necessary. The object of this is to meet the case of a man who has a well just outside the area of supply of the pumping company and which has been dried up as a result of the operations of the company. The subsection will enable the company to supply water in that particular case. Clause 5 sanctions the right of supply in bulk from water in transit. This principle has already been recognised in the Manchester case and in various other cases, but there is a protection in this case given to the water undertakers because there is an appeal by both parties to the Local Government Board, and the Board are given power of determining whether in their opinion the demand to be supplied with water in transit is equitable and the terms and conditions under which it should be done. The safeguard in that clause is the inquiry to be held by the Local Government Board at which all parties shall be entitled to be heard. I have now explained to your Lordships the chief points of the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Desborough.)

THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL

My Lords, the Local Government Board fully recognise the importance of the questions dealt with in this Bill. They recognise, too, that in a great many localities there has been a considerable diminution in the water supply through the operations of large water undertakings which supply populous districts, but at the same time it must be recognised that a cheap and plentiful supply of water is a prime necessity for all populous districts. Care must, therefore, be taken not to impose any great restrictions upon these large water undertakings.

If your Lordships will allow me, I will take the various objects of the Bill and state the view of the Local Government Board upon each. The first object is to prohibit the sinking of any well or the construction of any water works for taking or intercepting water by any authorised undertaker unless those works and the lands upon which they are to be constructed are specified in an Act of Parliament. That provision is in Clause 3. If your Lordships will look at Clause 7 you will find that the expression "authorised undertaker" means any local authority, company, body, or persons authorised by Act of Parliament or Provisional Order confirmed by Act of Parliament to take water for purposes of distribution and supply. Under the Public Health Act, 1875, urban and rural district councils are empowered and may in certain cases be compelled to provide a supply of water for their neighbouring villages; but under this Bill no works could be constructed, even though all parties were agreed as to the necessity of doing so, without coming to Parliament. The obtaining of an Act of Parliament, even if it is not opposed, is a lengthy proceeding, and is a matter which involves considerable expense. It would, appear almost unreasonable to ask a rural district council to incur such an expense; and, further, it should be mentioned that at present rural district councils have no statutory authority to promote Bills in Parliament, and the Local Government Board do not consider that it would be advisable to give it to them.

As regards the compensation to be paid for diminution of or injury to private water supplies, the expression "private water supply" is defined in Clause 7 as including rivers, springs, streams, ditches, ponds, wells, and bore pipes, and the water flowing or a percolating into or being therein and owned or used by any person not being an authorised undertaker. It would appear that it would expose authorised under-takers to very serious liability if every pond and ditch were included in that category, and unless they could prove that they were not responsible for the injury, they would, I take it, have to pay full compensation. It is an extremely difficult thing to prove a negative, and this provision would place undertakers in a most unfortunate position. Again, the radius of two and a-half miles seems rather a hard and fast provision. In some cases the effect of water works extends further than that distance, and in others perhaps less.

The next proposal is open, I think, to a somewhat similar objection. While it is quite reasonable that if a big undertaking is conveying water from a distance opportunity might be taken to provide a supply where it is needed along the route, still if it is laid down as a hard and fast rule that any one can claim the right of a supply—

LORD DESBOROUGH

It is only a district council which can apply. An individual could not apply.

THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL

But the power is given to any district council along the line of piping.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Yes, but not to any individual.

THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL

The Local Government Board, as I have said, do not fail to recognise the importance of the questions dealt with in the Bill, and the President of the Board has had them under consideration for a considerable time in connection with future legislation dealing with the protection of water rights and supplies. At the same time it seems to him that this Bill is too general in its proposals. He is afraid that it would substitute other grievances scarcely less serious than those it desires to remedy. Any general provisions to prevent the absorption of smaller supplies by larger undertakings ought to be very carefully safeguarded. In regard to fresh schemes coming before Parliament, I understand that it is now the practice of Parliamentary, Committees to consider most closely the details of all such schemes and their probable effect on local supplies and to insert appropriate provisions to safeguard them. It appears to the President of the Local Government Board that such provisions framed to meet the particular circumstances of special cases would be likely to be more satisfactory and equitable than the general and hard and fast rule provided in this Bill. For these reasons the Local Government Board do not favour the Second Reading of this Bill.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I confess I have heard with great disappointment the views expressed by the noble Earl on behalf of His Majesty's Government. There is no doubt as to the grievance which this Bill is intended to meet. My noble friend who introduced it laid great stress, and very properly, on the unfortunate case of the poor man, the owner, perhaps, of a small piece of land containing a well, who has his well entirely drained by some authority or company which has obtained powers to sink a deep well for the benefit of some populous area. It is a great and general grievance in the rural parts of the country. Though the Bill may be capable of amendment in regard to details, I venture to differ from the concluding words of the noble Earl when he said, on behalf of the President of the Local Government Board, that he thought no general alteration of the law was necessary in this matter. I do think that a general alteration of the law is necessary on behalf of those poorer persons whom my noble friend wishes to protect.

Now what were the objections raised by the noble Earl opposite? In the first place, he said that if Clause 3 were passed in its present form a parish council or rural district council would be unable to sink a well in their district to supply water to the inhabitants of that district. If that is so, that is a point of detail in which, no doubt, the Bill might be capable of amendment; but that is not a ground for objecting to the Second Reacting of the Bill. Then, again, the noble Earl objected to the obligation which the Bill proposes to impose on companies or local authorities by requiring them to prove that they have not abstracted the water from the well of a private owner. It may be difficult to prove a negative, but I do think there is some reason for strengthening the law in this matter. If it is difficult to prove a negative, it is by no means easy to prove an affirmative. Then the noble Earl objected to the third provision of the Bill, which he thought would impose very great difficulties in the way of local authorities in supplying water. That, again, is a matter for consideration in Committee. What I would venture to suggest is this, that the principle of the Bill might very fairly be affirmed by your Lordships' House, and that then the Bill might be referred, if His Majesty's Government thought well, to a Select Committee for further inquiry. We might then hope that my noble friend who introduced this Bill would see some practical result from his labours.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I share the surprise which was expressed by the noble Viscount at the attitude His Majesty's Government have adopted towards this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Desborough showed, there is really no proposal in the Bill which has not already received the sanction of Parliament. Clause 3, commonly known as the Wells Clause, is the clause which is now inserted in every Bill dealing with this matter which comes before Parliament, and it has the effect of preventing any local authority or private promoters from taking water from any places or by any works except those which have been sanctioned by Parliament.

But it is not every local authority and every water company that come to Parliament, and unless they do come to Parliament they still have the power, so far as Parliament is concerned, to sink wells on any land which they may possess or which they may by agreement acquire. I will not enter into the question as to whether or not the Courts of Law would hold that they had such a power. I think there has been a recent decision which rather tends to show that the law as it stands certainly discourages the idea that water companies or local authorities may sink wells wherever they choose within their district without coming to Parliament.

The reason why I am surprised at the attitude of His Majesty's Government is that this matter has already been before the other House of Parliament, and when Water Bills came before that House at the commencement of this session there was an Instruction moved to the Committees by whom those Bills were considered that they should inquire whether adequate provision had been made for the supply of water to any person or persons from whom any existing or natural supply was or might be withdrawn owing to the works or undertakings sanctioned by Parliament. That is practically the Bill of my noble friend, and I should have thought that if the Government were going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill they would have proposed some alternative, such as the setting up of a Joint Committee to consider what was a proper clause to insert in all Water Bills to protect the poorer classes of the community.

I do not mean to say that I agree with every part of every clause in this Bill. The question of the onus probandi is a very important and a very serious one. It is one which has been settled by different Parliamentary Committees in different ways. Sometimes the onus probandi has been put upon the promoters, and some- times upon the complainant. The South Staffordshire Bill, to which Lord Desborough referred, had a proviso which to my mind is more equitable than the one in this Bill, because it gave both parties an opportunity of taking objection. That Bill provided that— It shall not be obligatory on the owner to show that such diminution has been caused by the pumping aforesaid, but on the other hand it shall be competent to the company to show that any diminution has not been caused by such pumping. Therefore both parties were able to appear and state their case, and the onus probandi was equally distributed. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and allow the House a further opportunity of considering its details. There are, of course, large undertakings, such as the supply to Glasgow and Birmingham, where no great hardship would ensue if the pipes were tapped on the way from the source of supply to the consumers; but there are smaller undertakings which would not be able to supply in this way. These, however, are all questions of detail. The matter is one of very great importance, as the supply of water is not inexhaustible. In fact, in many parts of the country this is becoming a serious subject for consideration, and I venture to submit that it is the duty of Parliament, as far as it can, to protect the sources of supply to everyone who is entitled to draw from them, and not allow them to be exhausted on behalf of one section only of the community.

LORD BELPER

My Lords, I desire to say a few words on this Bill as I live in a county which is, perhaps, likely to suffer more than any other from the system which at present prevails. Reference has been made to the power of water companies to put down pumping stations without coming to Parliament. Our early experience was a very good instance of that. The Corporation of Nottingham applied to borrow money for the purpose of putting down a new pumping station on land which they had acquired by private purchase. Fortunately we had a locus standi, because their pipes were going to cross our road. If that had not been so the county council could not have stepped in, and there were no other minor authorities in the county sufficiently strong to make a protest against this scheme. The result of the inquiry was that the Local Government Board declared the matter to be of such importance that it must come to Parliament. The Bill came to Parliament; we opposed it very strongly in the other House, and finally the Bill was thrown out; but they were given a pumping station to be placed in the north of the county where there was an ample supply of water, and which we had offered them at the very outset of the proceedings. That showed the necessity of some body being empowered to look after the water supply of the rural districts.

In our county the water supply is an underground water supply, and undoubtedly you may, by putting down more powerful machinery than your neighbours, dry not only all the wells and streams in the neighbourhood, but also the less important pumping stations of the minor authorities. The common law right of pumping water on your own land, valuable and necessary as it is to those people who live upon their own property, was not a right which had been intended to be disposed of by private treaty to a large corporation who could put down a powerful pumping station and practically pump the neighbourhood dry. I think we should be grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Bill, which makes a serious attempt to deal with this difficulty.

This matter is not a new one. Seven years ago the County Councils Association appointed a very important committee, which was joined in by one society of engineers and by other bodies, to inquire into the whole question of underground water, and a valuable memorandum was produced. The result was that a deputation waited upon Mr. Walter Long, who was then President of the Local Government Board, to press upon him the necessity for some inquiry which would lead to legislation on this matter. The County Councils Association themselves promoted a Bill to try and establish a local authority who should have a general discretion over the watersheds. The West Riding and Lancashire succeeded in getting private Bills on those lines for themselves and our feeling was that if a general Act could be passed setting up some water authority, including no doubt representatives of the authorities in the county, who should have discretion with regard to the sinking of wells looking at what the supply of the district was it would be very valuable. Mr. Walter Long entirely agreed, and I think at that time he was anxious to appoint a Commission. That Commission, however, never was appointed.

Another subject of the greatest importance is the allowing of water to run to waste. Clause 4 deals with the question of the payment of compensation where water disappears owing to a new pumping station having been put down; but in a district like that in which I live it would be absolutely impossible to prove what was the cause of a sinking of water in particular wells. I will state what happened in our own case. A colliery was being sunk and during that work wells miles away were absolutely run dry in consequence, it was supposed, of the millions of gallons of water which ran to waste while the colliery was being sunk. There is also no doubt that at that period there had been very dry seasons, and the underground reservoirs had less water in them than before. The pumping stations had a great effect in reducing the amount of water available in the wells, but since then there have been rainy seasons, and a certain amount of water has returned. Therefore, it would be impossible to judge in these cases whether the decrease in the water available was owing to natural causes or to the particular pumping stations which had been laid down.

I should like to ask His Majesty's Government to consider the desirability of undertaking some sort of inquiry, either by a Committee of both Houses or a Royal Commission. Some of the provisions of this Bill are extremely desirable, and it does seem to me that there are many points of importance which a Committee or Commission could inquire into, and if the Bill is read a second time it might be made the foundation of dealing with the particular points in the Bill, but the inquiry could be extended into the whole question of the rights with regard to underground water. I should be obliged in Committee to move Amendments to Clause 4, which I do not think is applicable in its present form to all parts of the country; but I hope the Bill will be read a second time and will form the basis of an inquiry into the whole subject.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, anyone who has sat on Committees upstairs has had experience of this difficulty, and I can recall frequent instances in which, much against my inclination, I have given Bills to promoters which manifestly would injure certain localities. My noble friend who has brought in this Bill instanced cases where both protection and compensation have been accorded, but what I desire to point out is that this is a purely haphazard matter. In one case compensation may be awarded, but in another case, equally deserving, no such safeguard is obtained. In fact, it depends entirely on the chance of the membership of the Committee, and in my opinion it is most desirable that the Chairman of Committees should have definite rules by which they can be guided. With regard to this Bill, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that it is not of much use proceeding with the Bill if the Government are unfriendly to it. What possible chance is there of its becoming law? I venture to suggest as an alternative that the Local Government Board should appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the special points that have been raised. It need not take a long time. A decision might be arrived at before next session, when a model clause serving as a future guide to Private Bill Committees might be submitted.

THE EARL OF CREWE

My Lords, the noble Viscount opposite and the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees expressed acute disappointment at the attitude assumed by the Government in regard to this Bill. I confess that I do not think their attitude was an entirely reasonable one, and for this reason. This Bill contains three separate propositions, all of importance and all most clearly impressed on the House in the opening speech of the noble Lord. Exception has been taken to every one of these propositions, I think I am right in saying, by noble Lords who have spoken opposite, and who yet apparently desire to support the Second Reading.

This Bill seems to be an instance of a habit which appears to be growing on the House—that is to say, of introducing Bills and recommending them without any real regard to what they actually contain, and asking that they should be read a second time because they suggest a general principle of which everybody may be supposed to be in favour. In that respect this Bill resembles a very different Bill—that dealing with compulsory service. We were told then, Pay no attention to the contents of the Bill, this and that is objectionable, but do vote for the Second Reading in order to establish the principle. Now we are told that there is a grievance, which I fully admit, on this water question, and we are therefore to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, although all the actual propositions which it contains appear to be disputed.

I do not deny the importance of the question raised by the Bill or the existence of a grievance. It is no doubt the fact that very hard cases occur in which, under water schemes, water is abstracted from wells and from the supplies of private persons and of small communities, who gain nothing whatever from the passing of the larger scheme and indeed only lose by it. Those cases in the main, I should have thought, were cases which come before Parliament. I should have thought that the bulk of cases in which real hardship follows are cases in which application has to be made by Bill owing to the scale on which the operations are to be conducted, and then it is, of course, within the power of the Committee upstairs to insert any safeguards it can think of in the Bill. I am disposed to agree with the noble Lord who spoke last that it would be highly advantageous if some uniform method of applying these safeguards in Bills could be arrived at, and this certainly is one of the matters which demand attention.

As regards the three points, it seems to me that the noble Lord would have done better if he had not spread his net quite so wide, and if he had not tried to cover in this very general way every conceivable case of hardship. The first proposition is that all schemes by public authorities to supply water must be carried through by Act of Parliament. The noble Viscount said that that is a mere detail which can be considered in Committee. Surely it is a principle. If you are at once going to say that there are a considerable number of schemes, or any number of schemes, which need not come before Parliament, that may be the best way to meet the matter, but the noble Lord's principle goes by the board and you really come to the existing state of things some-what modified. That is one principle of the Bill gone.

The second principle is that wherever private supplies are injured by the abstraction of water the owner shall be entitled to compensation. Lord Belper has explained the extreme difficulty of arriving at the facts in a case of that kind. He mentioned the case of colliery sinkings, which in many cases abstract a great deal of water from their neighbourhood and sometimes from a considerable distance. In such cases there is no remedy, and apparently the noble Lord does not intend to apply a remedy. It is only in the case of a public supply that any remedy is to be applied. I ask your Lordships whether you are prepared to accept the proposition that in every case where a well is affected within a district of two and a half miles, whatever may be the possible contributory causes, the unhappy local authority is to be compelled to prove that it has not caused the loss of water. If that is the proposition which you are proposing to accept, and which you would accept, I think, by reading the Bill a second time, then it would put an absolute stoppage on all small local water schemes, and recourse to filling the kettle at the wayside ditch, which still exists in parts of the country, will continue to exist where small water schemes might otherwise be carried out. I do not think that with this risk over them any rural district council would attempt to engage in any kind of water scheme at all.

Then you have the third proposition, that the company is obliged to supply the whole of any district, whether rural or urban, through which the mains may pass on their way from the source of supply to the inhabitants of the district. There, again, we are told that that is a mere detail, and that there may be cases where it ought not to be done. But surely that is a principle. The moment you break into that you return very much to the existing state of things, in which, as we know, provision is frequently made both for supplying district councils or individuals through whose neighbourhood the mains pass, but there is no general compulsion of the very large kind suggested by the noble Lord. Therefore all three propositions more or less go by the board, and in these circumstances it does not seem to me altogether wise to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

If we are to lay it down as a proposition that the Second Reading of a Bill of this kind merely means that the subject is one for inquiry, well by all means read it a second time, though I do not think that it is quite a proper course for this House to pursue. I do think that there ought to be some inquiry, and I am sure the Local Government Board would gladly agree to an inquiry of that kind. It is worth noting that in one of the Reports—the Report issued in 1903—of the very important Committee on sewage disposal, these words occur:— In regard to the further question, it appears to us that the central authority might, with the aid of the Rivers Boards, collect such information as is available in regard to waste of water by pumping from mines and in regard to the abstraction of water from one district to the supply of another district to the detriment of the district from which the water is taken. What form the inquiry ought to take is a matter with regard to which we must ask for consideration. As to whether it should be a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, or a Joint Committee, or, as the noble Lord opposite suggested, a Departmental Committee, or some other form of inquiry, the House would hardly expect me to give an opinion without consulting with my right hon. friend, the President of the Board. So far as the Bill itself is concerned, it is obvious that it cannot become law this year, and I am quite sure that my noble friend opposite did not imagine that it would. Whether it is worth while reading it a second time in the rather peculiar circumstances I have stated I must leave to your Lordships to decide.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, it is quite clear from the attitude the noble Earl has taken that he is fortunate enough not to live in a county which suffers from the present state of the law with regard to water supplies. I am differently situated. I live in the unfortunate county of Hertfordshire, which has suffered more than any other county in this matter. The noble Earl does not realise how acutely public opinion is excited in that county, which is being robbed continually of its underground water supplies to provide water for London. To those who live in the county this is an intolerable grievance, for we are perpetually being called upon to spend our money in appearing before Parliamentary Committees in order to protect ourselves. With regard to the form of inquiry, I do not agree that a Departmental Committee would be the best form in the present case, because what we are seeking is some general arrangement which should govern the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and a Departmental Committee has no authority—

THE EARL OF CREWE

I understood that the question was wider than that, because the Bill refers to schemes which do not come before Parliament. The question is, therefore, a wider one than the noble Marquess has indicated.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It may be wider, but a Select Committee would be capable of dealing with the wider issue whereas a Departmental Committee would not be capable of dealing with the narrower issue. The finding of a Select or a Joint Committee would be more binding, and, therefore, it appears to me that the matter should be referred to a Committee of that kind I should like to say a word as to the criticisms which the noble Earl made on my noble friend's proposals? He criticised the three principles and said they had been abandoned by those who had spoken on the Bill. In my opinion the noble Earl greatly overstated the case. No doubt there were criticisms, but in no case was the fundamental principle called into question. The noble Earl has entirely confused matters of principle with matters of detail. I think that my noble friend has established a primâ facie case in favour of some remedy being applied to the present state of things, and in those circumstances I think your Lordships should agree to the Second Reading of the Bill; leaving the question of sending it to a Committee—and I should favour such an inquiry myself—for subsequent consideration.

On Question, Bill read 2a.