HL Deb 07 March 1934 vol 91 cc56-67

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Supply of water in bulk.

(3) The Minister of Health shall not give his consent to an agreement if it appears to him that the giving of the supply would be likely to interfere with the supply of water for domestic purposes within the limits of supply of the supplying undertakers.

(4) The powers conferred by this Act on statutory water undertakers—

  1. (a) shall not be deemed to authorise them to lay mains or other pipes, or to interfere with any street, beyond their limits of supply;
  2. (b) shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any powers conferred upon them under any other enactment.

(5) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them— Limits of supply" means in relation to any undertakers the limits within which they are for the time being authorisecl, under ally Act of Parliament other than this Act, or under any order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water: Statutory water undertakers means—

  1. (a) the following local authorities, that is to say, the council of any borough or urban or rural district and a joint board, or joint committee, constituted under the Public Health Act. 1875, or under a local Act for the purposes of the provision of a common water supply; and
  2. (b) any company, board or persons empowered by Act of Parliament or an order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water:
Supply of water in bulk" means supply of water for distribution by the undertakers taking the supply.

LORD DESBOROUGH had on the Paper an Amendment to insert after subsection (2): (3) Before giving his consent to an agreement under this Act for the supply of water in hulk by any statutory water undertakers whose source or sources of supply is or are situate within the limits of the watershed of the Thames above Teddington as shown on the 'deposited map' referred to in Section 119 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1932, to any other statutory water undertakers for consumption or use within the said limits the Minister of Health shall cause notice to be sent to the Conservators of the River Thames and shall consider any representations which may be made on behalf of the said Conservators and may cause a local inquiry to be held. (4) The Minister of Health shall not give his consent to an agreement under this Act for the supply in bulk of water abstracted by any statutory water undertakers from any source within the limits of the watershed of the Thames above Teddington as shown on the said map to any other statutory water undertakers for consumption or use outside the said limits.

The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading I foreshadowed certain objections with a view to the protection of the water supply of the Metropolis and also of other places on the Thames, which I think would be endangered if the Bill passed in the form in which it was presented, and therefore I put this Amendment on the Paper. Since then Lord Amulree, who is promoting this Bill, has met the two objections which I raised, and I will therefore not move my Amendment, but withdraw it in favour of his Amendment and the new clause which appear in the name of Lord Amulree after Clause 1.

LORD ELTISLEY moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) Before giving his consent to an agreement under this Act the applicants to give notice of the application by advertisement in a local newspaper or newspapers circulating within the limits of supply of the parties to the agreement and in such other manner (if any) as may be prescribed 120, the Minister and every such notice shall specify a date not being earlier than one month after the last publication of the notice within which representations may be made to the said Minister who before giving his consent shall consider any representations which are duly made and not withdrawn.

The noble Lord said: The case of my Amendment is, I think, very similar to that of the preceding one which was not moved. Lord Amulree has been good enough to incorporate the substance of my Amendment in the new clause proposed to be added to the Bill. There is only one point of difference that arises between my Amendment and his, and that is that I suggest that a month's notice should be given whereas his Amendment suggests that the period of notice should be fourteen days. I move my Amendment on behalf of the Municipal Corporations' Association and the Water Companies' Association. Both are in agreement, and they feel that a month would be the proper period of time for notice to be given by advertisement. I do not feel very strongly on the matter, however, and perhaps Lord Amuiree will be good enough to extend the fourteen days and offer a compromise of three weeks, which will ensure the advertisement appearing in at least two issues of the local papers circulating in the respective areas. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Eltisley.)

LORD AMULREE

I do not think there is much difference between fourteen days and three weeks. The question is one of public notice. If my noble friend feels very keenly about the notice being three weeks, when your Lordships come to my Amendment I should be quite prepared to suggest three weeks.

VISCOUNT GAGE

May I say on behalf of the Ministry that my instructions are that they prefer fourteen days?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD moved, in subsection (3), after "domestic," to insert "or other." The noble Lord said: I understand this Amendment is being agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, after ("domestic") insert ("or other").—(Viscount Knutsford.)

LORD AMULREE

The object of this Amendment is to provide that when application is made to the Minister to give his consent he is not to give his consent to an agreement which appears to him to be likely to interfere with the supply of water for domestic purposes. The noble Viscount's Amendment is that after the word "domestic" there should appear "or other" so that the Bill would read: The Minister of Health shall not give his consent to an agreement if it appears to him that the giving of the supply would be likely to interfere with the supply of water for domestic or other purposes. As a rule the statutory obligation on water undertakers is to supply only for domestic purposes, but if a water undertaker supplies water under agreement for any other purpose it would be unreasonable for that authority to enter into an agreement with any other authority to supply water in bulk which would have the effect of reducing the supply unduly to their own trade consumers. In these circumstances I think the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount is an improvement on the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships it might be accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved to insert after subsection (3): (4) For the purpose of giving or taking a supply of water in pursuance of an agreement made under this Act, statutory water undertakers may exercise either within or beyond their limits of supply any of the powers which, under Sections twenty-eight to thirty-four of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847 (which relate to the breaking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes) are exercisable by undertakers within the limits of a special Act for the purpose of supplying water to the inhabitants of the district included within those limits: Provided that the consent of the persons under whose control or management a street or bridge is shall be required to the opening or breaking up thereof, but that, consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether or not consent is unreasonably withheld shall be decided by the Minister.

The noble Lord said: In subsection 4(a) it is provided that the powers conferred by the Bill shall not be deemed to authorise them to lay mains or other pipes or to interfere with any street, beyond their limits of supply.

In this respect the Bill conforms to the model clause on the subject in the House of Lords Model Water Bill. The position under the Bill as it now stands is that (a) where the receiving authority is a local authority supplying water under the Public Health Acts, Section 54 of the Public Health Act of 1875 gives them power to lay mains in any area which may intervene between their district and the limits of supply of the supplying authority for the purpose of conveying water; and (b) local authorities and water companies supplying water under special Acts of Parliament have no power of laying mains outside their limits of supply unless the special Act under which they work confers such powers. The object of this Amendment is to meet a case where the areas of the supplying and receiving authorities do not adjoin. It has been represented that for the purpose of bulk supply under the Bill all statutory water undertakers should have the power to lay mains beyond their limits of supply. It is reasonable that desirable provisions for bulk supply from one authority to another should not be made impossible because of the absence of powers to lay the necessary mains.

This Amendment is moved in order that all statutory undertakers shall have the power to lay mains in intervening territory where necessary for giving a bulk supply. On the other hand high-way authorities, and in particular county councils, as the authorities responsible for main roads (outside county boroughs), are naturally averse from unlimited powers to statutory undertakers to break up their roads. Many of these roads are very costly to construct, and when broken up, even if repaired with care the strength of a road is often impaired. The Amendment therefore provides that the consent of the highway authority shall be required before mains can be laid in highways. The County Councils' Association are prepared to agree to such a provision being included in the Bill. If consent is unreasonably withheld there may be a reference to the Minister to determine the question. With the Amendment, water undertakers will also have the power to lay mains on private land by agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Amulree.)

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

I am such a new boy at this business that I do not quite understand the procedure. I want to know whether, if I mention objections to this Amendment, they can be considered on the Report stage, or whether in mentioning them now it would handicap me on the Report stage?

VISCOUNT GAGE

I suggest that the Committee should allow this clause to pass without prejudicing in any way any Amendment which the noble Viscount may feel inclined to move on Report.

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

Then if that is so I would like to say this. Speaking for the railway companies we ask that instead of going before two justices of the peace sitting in petty sessions, when there is any disagreement or when there is any scheme to be approved, we may have an engineer approved by some authority to settle the differences. If you go before two justices, while they may be very wise in the administration of justice, they are often extraordinarily ignorant in the matter of engineering, and, therefore, you have to bring a large amount of expert evidence before them before you can make out a case. An engineer of approved capacity would settle the matter between the companies and the authority in ten minutes. That is one objection.

The next is that the railway companies require all works to be constructed so as not to cause injury to their railways, bridges, or other works, or any interruption to the passage of traffic on the railway. Under the Waterworks Act there is no power of compensation for the interruption of traffic. There is no power to enable a railway company to obtain damages in respect of a burst pipe which is not on their property but which may be in a road over which their bridge goes. The railway companies think that that should be allowed to them. The protective clauses generally obtained in Private Acts cover mains, pipes, and other works over and under railways. The railway companies object to the wide powers now sought unless the Bill contains protection for the railways and their bridges on the lines I have indicated. I have in my hand a printed statement showing what we agree with hundreds of companies on matters of this sort, and I should like to hand that to the noble Lord as an instance of the powers, or rather privileges, for which we ask.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The Ministry agree with the suggested clause of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, but in regard to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Knutsford, I world point out that it has only been raised a very short time before this debate and it is difficult to express an opinion. I would only say that from the Ministry's point of view it would appear at first sight that it is claiming an extension of the safeguards under the existing law. This Bill and the new clause as suggested by Lord Amulrce are an extension of a principle which appears in the Public Health Act. I think the effect of the noble Viscount's suggested Amendment to this new clause would be, in fact, to ask for an amendment of the general law. May I suggest that the clause should go forward as it is and if the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, sees fit to move an Amendment on Report there will be no prejudice against him?

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

Of course, the Public Health Act does not apply to statutory undertakings.

LORD AMULREE

I would remind the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, that all the Bill does is to enable the water undertakers to lay a main in a public road or in private land. In the case of a public road the opening up of the street is done with the consent of the authority. In the case of a main road the public authority would be the county council, and in the case of a district road the authority would be the district council. In the case of a railway bridge it would be the railway company.

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

No, it does not belong to us.

LORD AMULREE

I take it that a railway bridge belongs to the railway company, and in that case the railway company would be the body to give consent.

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

I need not prolong the debate, because that would be to waste time. I can raise the matter on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph(a), The noble Lord said: This is consequential upon the Amendment which has just been accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ELTISLEY

had an Amendment on the Paper to add to paragraph (a) in subsection (4) the words "except with the consent of the county council or other highway authority within whose area any such pipes are proposed to be laid, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld." The noble Lord said: I think the second paragraph of the main Amendment which has just been accepted by the House covers all the ground which is before your Lordships in the Amendment standing in my name. Therefore I need not move it.

LORD AMULREE

moved to insert the following proviso in subsection (4): Provided that this Act shall not be deemed to authorise statutory water undertakers who have power under a local Act to supply water in bulk, subject to a prohibition against supplying water outside the catchment area which includes their limits of supply, to supply water in bulk outside that catchment area.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a proviso which seeks to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Des-borough during the Second Reading and also in the Amendment of which he gave Notice. It provides that where an agreement is made under the Bill for a supply of water in bulk, and the water undertakers have the power to supply in bulk under a local Act, they shall be subject to the restriction, if any, contained in the local Act. My noble friend's Amendment was confined particularly to the Thames Conservancy Board, and the Amendment which I am now moving makes it general so as to apply to all catchment areas. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

So far as the Thames Conservancy Board are concerned, they are quite ready to fall in with the suggestion made by my noble friend in this Amendment. It is in more general terms than my Amendment, and is quite satisfactory as far as we are concerned.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This is preliminary to an Amendment I shall move presently. The only change made by the two Amendments will be that, whereas the interpretation provisions are at present included in subsection (5) of Clause 1, they will more appropriately constitute a separate clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 1:

Procedure on application for the Minister's consent.

"—(1) Statutory water undertakers who propose to enter into an agreement under this Act shall cause a notice to be published in one or more local newspapers circulating within their respective limits of supply, stating the effect of the proposals, and that objections with respect to the proposals may be made to the Minister within fourteen days after the publication of the notice, and shall send a notice in similar terms to the catchment board of any area from which water is obtained by the undertaker who proposes to give the supply.

(2) The provisions of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which relates to the holding of local inquiries in certain cases, including where the Minister is authorised by that Act to give a consent to any matter) shall have effect, before as well as after the coming into operation of that Act, as if the consent of the Minister to an agreement under this Act were a consent Which he is authorised to give under that Act."

The noble Lord said: The two new subsections which I am moving are designed to meet points raised by my noble friends Lord Eltisley and Lord Desborough. During the Second Reading it was stated that parties other than the parties to the agreement may be affected by the supply of water in bulk by one authority to another. Accordingly it was suggested that they should be notified by public advertisements in local newspapers and elsewhere of the proposals, and given an opportunity to make representations to the Minister, who would consider the representations before he decided whether or not to give consent to the proposed agreement. The first subsection deals with that point and makes provision for such advertisements to be published and for such objections to be received. Another part of the clause deals with the point raised with regard to the catchment area, more particularly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Deshorough in connection with the Thames Conservancy Board. The proposal is that, instead of making I particular to the Thames Conservancy Board, it should apply to catchment areas generally. Accordingly the new clause proposed provides that "a notice in similar terms" shall be addressed "to the catchment board of any area from which water is obtained by the undertaker who proposes to give the supply." There was a question raised about the length of notice upon which I am afraid that I have got into some trouble. My Amendment suggests fourteen days; my noble friend Lord Eltisley suggests that it should be a month. I shall wait until my noble friend Lord Gage, who speaks for the Department, expounds his view upon that part of the Amendment.

With regard to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, that deals with a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deshorough—namely, with regard to the holding of inquiries. Having regard to the general powers which the Ministry of Health have, it is not really necessary to make special provision for holding inquiries: if the proposed new clause is adopted, but it is important, with regard to the holding of an inquiry, to provide who shall bear the expense of the inquiry, and subsection (2) of the proposed new clause deals with that point and provides that the expenses shall come within Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. That section provides that the Minister shall have power to deal with the costs and expenses in connection with the inquiry. I think that the proposed new clause, as drawn, deals with the points raised by the two Amendments, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

This new clause meets one of the two objections or criticisms which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill. Although it is much wider in its application than what I suggested in my Amendment, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Amulree for having met my objections in this very broad and, I venture to think, wise manner. I cordially support the new clause.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I have ascertained that the Ministry have no objection to prolonging the period from fourteen days to twenty-one days, and that they have no objection to the clause.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I beg to move, in Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "twenty-one."

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— Subsection (1), line 7, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one"),—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

On Question, the original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

Interpretation.

"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them—: 'Limits of supply' means in relation to any undertakers the limits within which they are for the time being authorised, under any Act of Parliament other than this Act, or under any order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water: 'Statutory water undertakers' means—

  1. (a) the following local authorities, that is to say, the council of any borough or urban or rural district and a joint board, or joint committee, constituted under the Public Health Act, 1875, or under a local Act for the purposes of the provision of a common water supply; and
  2. (b) any company, board or persons empowered by Act of Parliament, or an order confirmed by Parliament, to supply water.
'Supply of water in bulk' means supply of water for distribution by the undertakers taking the supply.

The noble Lord said: It will be remembered that I asked a few minutes ago that the interpretation subsection in Clause 1 might be struck out for the purpose of being insetted as a separate clause. The Interpretation Clause which I now propose is in exactly the same words as those in the original subsection in the Bill.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.