Lords Sitting of 14 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON.
  Sir Alfred Edward Webb-Johnson, K.C.V.O., C.B.E., D.S.O., having been created Baron Webb-Johnson, of Stoke-on-Trent in the County of Stafford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  LORD MAENAN.
  Sir William Francis Kyffin Taylor, K.B.E., K.C., having been created Baron Maenan, of Ellesmere in the County of Salop—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

  LORD WILLIAMS.
  Thomas Edward Williams, Esq., having been created Baron Williams, of Ynyshir in the County of Glamorgan—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Lord Milne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

  IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL.
  2.38 p.m.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments. Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  THE DOCK STRIKE.
  2.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether any estimate has been formed of the cost of demurrage owing to the strike of London dock workers and whether this cost falls on the community; and whether they have any statement to make on the losses likely to result to shipowners, importers, manufacturers and to the export drive in general.]
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, particulars of demurrage paid are not available. Very substantial loss resulted from the delay to ships and traffic in the Port of London. It is not possible to estimate the total amount, nor to indicate its precise incidence, except that it has been estimated that the cost of the ships' time lost alone was of the order of £880,000.
  VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether any estimate can be formed of the loss of wages by industrial workers (other than dock workers) as a result of the hold-up of shipping in the dock and consequent delays in the delivery of raw materials.]
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I regret to say that it is impracticable to make such an estimate.
  VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the third question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government how many police officers were employed on special duty in connection with the dock strike; the number of man-hours worked by them, and the approximate cost to the community.]
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, in all, 1,358 police were employed on duties arising out of the strike of London dock workers from June 17–30. Their aggregate number of hours of duty was 10,010. No extra charges were incurred, the duty being part of the normal duties of the police.
  VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, arising out of the answers given, I very much regret that it is impossible for the

  829
  noble Lord to give the figures. I hope that it may be possible to do so, at least so far as possible, a little later. I feel the country should know the colossal cost and the problems that have been created by this calamitous strike. In connection with the answers, I should like to ask two further questions. First, have the Government any reason to think that the recent strike, the happy conclusion of which is welcomed by everyone in the country, was in any way due to unrest on the part of the dockers on other industrial issues, and to the trade union leaders being out of touch with the men; or were they wilfully misled by political agitators whose motives are not always above suspicion? From personal experience, I have always found the dock workers loyal to their responsibilities to the community, and I speak in no disparaging spirit in regard to this. Your Lordships will recall their devotion to duty during air raids and in face of other physical dangers. My second question is: What has been done to investigate the grievances which were made the occasion of the strike, and are steps being taken to prevent a recurrence of this kind of action, which is so devastating to the export drive upon which the very life of the nation depends?
  LORD WALKDEN: I am afraid I cannot answer any of the noble Viscount's questions very extensively, except to say that this unhappy incident lasted only a fortnight. I am glad to say that we are rather fortunate in this country at the present time, in that our trade disputes are generally brief; they are always unofficial and we have fewer of them than we used to have years ago—years that I can remember. The circumstances of the recent dockworkers' strike are being suitably inquired into, while the position about their working arrangements is being considered as between the trade unions and the dock authorities. We are hopeful that improved arrangements may be made to prevent incidents of this kind in future.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if the investigation he referred to will include the reintroduction of the Trade Disputes Act?
  VISCOUNT MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy and his kindness in giving me the replies he has.

  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS FOR EX-SERVICE MEN.
  2.44 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the freedom of patients under the National Health Service Scheme to choose the type of artificial limbs which they desire to have will be extended to ex-Service men supplied with artificial limbs by the Ministry of Pensions. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, I beg leave to ask the question standing in his name. Your Lordships may have noticed that the wording of this question has been changed from that which was originally put down three weeks ago, and I would like to explain why that has been done. Under the original scheme put forward by the Minister of Health, in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Act, the supply of artificial limbs for all those entitled to receive them was handed over to the Ministry of Pensions to be administered under their Roehampton organisation. Without levelling any criticism at the Roehampton Scheme, I should explain that that decision would have produced this unhappy result. It would nave resulted in the forcing out of business of all the private firms which were hitherto making artificial limbs, and which were not under contract as part of the Government's scheme. It would also have resulted in a complete monopoly springing up in favour of the two firms which were under contract to the Government. The result of that would have been that those who had their artificial limbs made by a private non-contracting firm would eventually be compelled to change their limbs to Roehampton limbs, because the private firms would no longer be able to maintain and repair the limbs which they had originally supplied.
  I think your Lordships will agree that in so personal a matter as an artificial limb, that is a highly undesirable state of affairs. Further, the creation of a Government monopoly would have been very detrimental to that progress in the face of competition which is so essential in a technical matter such as this. It was, if I may say so, a particularly callous example of something of which we have seen a great deal too much recently—namely, the sacrifice of the individual upon the altar of administrative tidiness. As your Lordships will recall, there was

  831
  immediately an outcry about it: there were letters in The Times, public protest meetings by ex-Service men's organisations, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and I put the original question on the Order Paper in an attempt to have the matter cleared up.
  The Government, however (all to their credit) changed their mind, and on July 1 in another place the then Minister of Pensions made a statement, which was, in fact, a complete reversal of the Government's policy. They have now issued the necessary statutory instrument for the implementation of that new policy. The purpose of this question is to find out what is the position in regard to ex-Service men. So far as I can see, they are not covered by the Minister of Pensions' statement, and they are not provided for by the statutory instrument. I think your Lordships will agree that it is most important that ex-Service men, who constitute such a large percentage of those involved, should be properly looked after. It would be very unjust indeed if the freedom of choice which is granted to civilians and their right to have those limbs supplied free by the Government, should not been tended to ex-Service men. It is in order to try and clear this matter up that this question has been put down. An assurance has been given in public by the present Minister of Pensions—and I have seen it reported, I think in the Daily Worker—that it will probably be done. My noble friends and I, however, feel that this matter should receive a definite and conclusive explanation. There are now limbless veterans of three wars to be considered. I think your Lordships will agree that the welfare of limbless ex-Service men constitutes a heavy charge upon the public conscience. For that reason, I very much hope that the Government to-day will be able to give a sympathetic and satisfactory answer to this question.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has given a reasonable and fair account of the present position. Under the National Health Service an artificial limb, where required, will be supplied free. Normally, the limb will be of the same type as the limb now supplied to disabled ex-Service men by the Ministry of Pensions through their own contactors. But under arrangements recently concerted, to which the noble
  832
  Lord has just referred, between the Ministry of Pensions and the manufacturers of artificial limbs not at present contracting to the Ministry, it will be possible for an individual to elect to be fitted with another make of limb approved by the Ministry, provided that he accepts responsibility for any increased cost on this account. This option will be available to all patients eligible under the National Health Service, including disabled ex-Service men.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords who have had this matter much at heart are deeply gratified by the answer just given. We want all these men to have freedom of choice as to the kind of limb they will use. I am certain that the extension of this option will be welcomed throughout all ranks of ex-Service men.
  LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I am little versed in the usages and customs of your Lordships' House, and I would claim your indulgence in expressing the satisfaction which will be felt by all practising surgeons at the Government's answer to-day. This question has been a source of great anxiety to us, not only on account of the patients of the moment, but also because of the possibility of preventing developments in the future. I fear that I may be transgressing the rules of the House, but I implore your Lordships' indulgence, as I wished to express my satisfaction with the answer given.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord who has just joined our assembly and thus early made his maiden speech on such an appropriate topic, of which he has full knowledge. I am sure I am echoing the wish of every noble Lord when I say that I hope on many future occasions we may have the pleasure of his counsel.

  ENBORNE VALLEY RESERVOIR SCHEME.
  2.53 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to call attention to the proposed scheme by the Metropolitan Water Board to flood the Enborne Valley; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I begin to speak on the subject of my Motion, it is customary in both Houses,

  833
  quite properly, to acquaint the House with any personal interest in the subject. I would just say to your Lordships that practically everything I possess will be under the water if this scheme goes through. I am one of the 4,000 to 5,000 people who are going to be displaced should this scheme go through. I think the best thing I can do is shortly to say what the scheme is. I think it is so remarkable that those of your Lordships who do not know about it will almost gasp when you hear what is projected. The idea is that when, in the winter, the Thames is above a certain level—I would ask your Lordships to take particular note of this figure—55,000,000,000 gallons will be pumped from Pangbourne into this proposed reservoir, a distance of twelve miles, with an uplift, roughly speaking, of 120 feet. That is the scheme. When this reservoir is full, and when the summer comes, if the Thames falls below a certain level, then the water will be run back again into the Thames at Pangbourne.
  Your Lordships will readily appreciate that once the "cat is out of the bag" with a scheme of this kind, the uncertainty of the present situation must not be allowed to continue unnecessarily. Your Lordships will readily appreciate what is in the minds of those 4,000 to 5,000 people who live in this area. Here is, so to speak, a Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. No one knows what to do. It would be obviously ridiculous to spend money on the upkeep of property, whatever it may be. In fact, the whole area—I can say this from personal experience; I have already addressed many meetings in the district—is practically paralysed. All housing schemes are stopped, and some houses are left half-built; all betterment in regard to local schemes (and there are quite a number in an area of that size) is suspended; and, generally speaking, deterioration in the whole area has begun. The position of my neighbours is really pitiable. This is no matter to laugh at. My noble friend opposite seems to think that this is a joke; but, believe me, if he lived in the valley where I live, and saw the pitiful expressions on the faces of some of the poor people—old people who have built a house for themselves, and perhaps have another which they have let—who have lived there for generations, he would
  834
  not find it a laughing matter. I have every sympathy for them, not from my own personal point of view but from their point of view, because I know that it probably means far more to them trail it does to me. Where are these people to go if they are to be displaced? How are they to find another place to live? What will be their economic situation if they are displaced? I hope to show your Lordships, and the Government, that this is a wholly impracticable and, from a national point of view, inadvisable scheme.
  There appear to me to be at least six Ministries involved in this question. I propose to deal, as shortly and concisely as possible, with the various positions, in which the Ministries will find themselves. Before I come to that, there is one matter to which I must refer, and that is the weather. Let us suppose that this reservoir had been in existence and full before last summer. Last summer was a dry summer and, as we all know, splendid harvest weather. Under the scheme, the water in that reservoir would have been run back into the Thames. I leave your Lordships to imagine what nine square miles of an empty reservoir would look like, and what its general condition would be as a breeding ground for mosquitoes and every other bug in the world. As I have said, last summer was dry. This last winter has also been dry, and I understand that the Thames would never have been in a condition in which it would be possible to do any pumping. Here we are, then, into the next summer. Now supposing that we had a very dry summer, the whole of this scheme would be unworkable. The satisfactory working of the scheme is bound to depend upon the weather. I was told by somebody: "This scheme is to obviate some flooding which takes place in Maidenhead." But, suppose we have a very wet summer and winter, and the reservoir is filled, and then there is another flood. Maidenhead gets it just the same. From every angle, so far as I can see, the whole success of the project is dependent upon the weather, and I wonder whether, in the circumstances, it is a good idea to embark upon this enormous expenditure.
  There are certain questions to which we are entitled to have an answer. I want to know, and we who live in the valley all want to know, for what pur-

  835
  poses this water is to be used. Is it to be run back into the Thames and then used for washing the streets of London? Is it the intention of the Metropolitan Water Board to use this as an auxiliary to the water supply of London? If we are to suffer, as it appears we are, we are entitled to know for what purposes the water is to be used. I would like for a moment to deal with the huge increase which there has been in the consumption of water per head in London. I will give your Lordships figures which have been issued by the Metropolitan Water Board. In 1939, the average amount of water used per head per day in London was 38.83 gallons; in 1945 it was 43.85 gallons and in 1948 52.12 gallons. Yet the population of London has decreased from 7,887,000 in 1939 to 6,244,000 in 1948, a drop of about 1,500,000. At the same time there is an increase from 1939 of, shall we say, 14 gallons per head per day in London. Those are remarkable figures. I would like to know the answer to this other question: Has every possible avenue been explored with a view to the stoppage of waste in London? We all know there is a great waste of water everywhere. If there has been an investigation into this subject, I think it is only right that we should have a copy of the report, in order that we may see that the matter has been gone into satisfactorily.
  Again, have all alternative schemes been thoroughly investigated? If they have, then surely those in the position of these 4,000 to 5,000 people should have the report. I understand that this very scheme was suggested in 1908, and was again flirted with about twelve years ago. On both those occasions it was abandoned. Why was it abandoned? Surely the reasons for which it was abandoned on those two occasions still remain. What has happened since to cause the Metropolitan Water Board to consider that this is a feasible proposition, when on two former occasions they have abandoned it? I think that this information should be given to us all.
  If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to quote one or two remarks from the minutes of a Metropolitan Water Board meeting of April 30, which shows what a very problematical business this is. I will not weary your Lordships with many quotations—there are many of the
  836
  same nature—but I would like to read just a short paragraph, the final words of which are significant. The minutes refer to the possibility of there being an abnormal drought, both in summer and winter, and then there appear these words:
  "The circumstances referred to are the unprecedented rate of increase in consumption during the past two years."
  Finally, they say this:
  "The Board"—
  in spite of all this—
  "already have ample storage accommodation for normal years."
  That is a very strong statement to make. Then they ask us to evacuate a valley of nine square miles, incurring this enormous expenditure! I understand that it will cost anything from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000 to build this reservoir; and, moreover, I am told by eminent engineers that the pumping and upkeep will cost in the region of £2,000,000 a year. Your Lordships can see by that that the whole matter is very vague, and that they do not fully know where they are. I had an interview with one of the engineers of the Metropolitan Water Board, and whenever I put any pertinent question to him, he said: "Well, of course, all these matters will be carefully considered." But would not your Lordships consider that, as this proposition was brought up in 1908 and again twelve years ago, there ought to be a mass of information so that it should not be necessary for this to be considered and that to be considered? They ought to have all the data there without any further delay in investigation.
  Now I come to the various Ministries, and I take as priority No. 1 the Ministry of Food. I am not going to weary your Lordships with details of the amount of food which is produced in this valley, but are the Ministry of Food going to view with anything but concern and, indeed, alarm a scheme by which 5,500 acres of fanning land, producing a great deal of agricultural produce, will be lost? In the last few days the Chancellor of the Exchequer has warned us of our serious condition and either he or the other Minister has told us that it was possible we might have to reduce our rations. We also have Sir John Boyd Orr's remarks on the world production of food and the increase in population. Can we really, at a moment like this, embark upon a scheme of this

  837
  sort, which will definitely wreck the production of a large amount of essential foodstuffs for our people—quite apart from the fact that it demands dollars to replace the food that we cannot grow in this valley?
  I come next to the Ministry of Health, with their problem of housing. There is a great danger to health. Who would like to go and live alongside this reservoir, which in the winter will be full and in the summer empty, with the sun beating down upon it? It is something which one would avoid, and from which one would live miles away if one could. I may tell your Lordships, too, that there are within the area a couple of quite large graveyards. I am informed also that the streams and little rivers which will run into the reservoir will not compensate for the evaporation. Those of your Lordships who know the area will realise that there must be of necessity—nothing can avoid it—only a foot or two of water in a great many parts of it. There will be other places where it will be 50 feet deep. But just imagine, in the height of summer, having only a foot or two of water over this area, and think how quickly evaporation will be going on.
  Now I come to the Ministry of Agriculture. Noble Lords are aware that one does not farm from year to year. This scheme, so far as I can see, will completely upset any long-term scheme of rotation in crops, or indeed of fertilisation. I should like to ask the noble Lord how it is possible, in the circumstances, to tell the farmers in this area what crops they are to grow, and how they are to conduct their farms. I cannot see that it is possible at present. Then I come to the Ministry of Transport. In one place, quite a short distance out of New-bury, the main road from Newbury to Basingstoke will have about 40 to 50 feet of water over it. That means building a very long viaduct if the road is to continue in use; and this main road is extensively used by traffic from the Midlands to the sea. A portion of the Winchester-Basingstoke by-pass road will be under this reservoir. In addition, I think there is in process of building a main trunk road to by-pass Newbury. There is danger to that road, and to the Andover-Salisbury road.
  Your Lordships will see that I have already mentioned three Ministries who
  838
  are closely interested in this question. I would refer now to the question of the Minister of Defence. I wonder what he feels about this. A dam is to be built; I believe it is to be a mile long, and very high; and to anybody flying from the East it will be more or less in a direct line with Harwell, where our atomic bomb laboratory is situated. I am wondering whether the Minister of Defence is quite happy about giving that indication to any foreigner who contemplates coming to bomb us. Can he possibly be happy about giving a landmark such as this? Harwell is only a very few minutes' flight away—about 15 to 20 miles. Moreover, supposing the dam were to be bombed and burst: away goes Reading, and away goes the Great Western Railway. These possibilities have to be thought of now, and not after an immense sum has been spent on the project. I come next to the Treasury. Are we so well off that at the present time we can embark on a scheme of: this kind, with all its problems, with all the doubts there must be as to its success, and with no compensating element in it at all? It will be merely for supplying water—for what use we do not know—for London.
  Now, my Lords, I like to be constructive, and I will be so now, having so far been destructive. We have heard for many years about the Welsh scheme. It has been in the picture more or less as long as I can remember. It is certainly a longer distance to run water from the mountains of Wales into the Thames. It may mean a longer pipeline but there will be no pumping, since the water will come down, I understand, from a height of approximately 800 feet; and it can be run into the Thames by pipe: wherever it is wanted. I am informed by an eminent engineer, in whom I have every confidence, that the pipeline would cost no more than £20,000 a mile. Of course that is not including the dam that would be necessary. If we could do that, why should we not consider, while we are about it, marrying such, an idea with hydro-electric power, to relieve the grid—and incidentally, perhaps, enable us to export more coal? Here is something that I would like your Lordships to consider. If we could in any way relieve the strain on the supply of power from the coalfields by some big hydro-electric scheme of this sort, combined with a water supply for London, I say that in times like these it

  839
  would be well worth doing and worth the money that would be spent on it. After all, so far as I can see, it will be a long time before we are able to get as much coal as we want in this country for supply purposes, particularly having regard to the need for increasing our export and getting back to the times when we were exporting millions of tons a year. This scheme would not be affected by the weather; and there would be hardly any displacement of people.
  A decision on the Enborne Valley scheme must be arrived at soon. If the scheme is to be abandoned, it would be grossly unfair not to say so now. You cannot properly keep 4,000 or 5,000 people living in a state of uncertainty for an indefinite time; it would cause great deterioration all round. There has been, in my own mind and in the minds of some of my neighbours, some doubt as to whether the 1945–1948 Water Acts might not be brought in and the scheme carried through in a light-hearted manner, under an Order in Council or something of that kind. In my view that should be out of the question, and there ought to be a private or other Bill passed through Parliament, in the discussion upon which every opportunity will be given to those who oppose the Bill to bring evidence and state their case.
  This is not a political matter. It is something of supreme national importance. It would be a tragedy to many thousands of our fellow-countrymen if this scheme were to go through. I think it is a bad scheme—and I hope I have shown it to be such—from, many points of view. It is an expensive scheme, and I do not believe that we can afford it. From a practical point of view, I think it is uncertain and unworkable. In my early life I happen to have been a miner and a mining engineer, and I know a great deal about geology. I have studied the geological maps about these formations under this valley. So far as I can see, it is no use talking about "freezing" or cementing up faults under this valley, of which undoubtedly there are some. You can do that perhaps in a mine, but you cannot do that in a big area of this kind. So far as I know, no such scheme as this has ever been suggested before. There is no catchment about it, for it is purely artificial. I believe that, if it is unavoidable
  840
  in the public good and if it should be proved 100 per cent. necessary, then those of us who are in it must give way to it. But I think it will be very difficult, no matter how eminent are the engineers or the geologists, to prove that this is a workable proposition to undertake in present circumstances, having regard both to the water supply of London and to the general condition of our country. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.22 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has done a great public service in bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. He has told us that he himself is in danger of being submerged, and by his speech he has shown us that there are even more important considerations than that! The Government, not unnaturally, will probably tell us that there is, in fact, no scheme at all before us. That is a reply which I think it is fairly obvious to make, and one which in formal terms may have some justification. But, unfortunately, the engineers and experts of the Metropolitan Water Board have been going round this area for a considerable time, telling residents there, in great detail, what is going to be done and what has in fact been decided upon. In addition, the minutes of the Metropolitan Water Board have been circulated to many public authorities in that area. Therefore, I think we must take it that this scheme is definitely "on the map."
  There is talk of a definite decision not being taken for two years. I know that we have the greatest sympathy from the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in matters of this sort. In fact, I think it was he, when he was in a less responsible position, who first led this House in protesting against the irresponsibility of some of these water demands. In the light of the considerations put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I think the noble Viscount will at once recognise that no responsible Government can possibly allow this matter to remain undecided for the next two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, himself has admitted, it may be that the scheme will have to go through, although as yet there is no evidence that it should. However, if it is to go through, the sooner the matter is decided, the better.

  841
  What is the real position? Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who is to reply, could tell us this. Has this scheme actually been before the National Water Advisory Committee? What is worrying some of us a great deal is not merely this scheme, terrible though its effects will be upon a large portion of our countryside, but the fact that periodically, in spite of the National Water Advisory Committee, these piecemeal schemes are brought before us. For instance, there was the Middlesex scheme, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was worried. Then, a year or two ago, we had the Leicester scheme, called the Manifold scheme. Now we have this scheme. Is there any evidence at all of a real national consideration of the problem? After all, we live in days of planning. We are fortunate enough to have sitting on the Bench opposite representatives of a Government who are the only people in the country who really understand planning. Why, then, must we suffer from the piecemeal treatment of this great national problem?
  How does this scheme fit in with general Government policy? Sir Stafford Cripps has recently been speaking of a great cut in capital expenditure. How does this expenditure—which I think is something over £20,000,000—fit into the carrying out of that plan? We know that this country is at the moment suffering, and will very likely suffer for many years to come, from a terrible shortage of labour and materials. Have the population figures for the next ten to twenty years been taken into consideration by the Board? We know that within the next fifteen to twenty years there is bound to be a tremendous variation in the population. There will also be the shifting of the population from London into new towns.
  Finally there is the overruling importance of the effect of this scheme, both direct and indirect, upon the food production of the country. We have not, as yet, had details of what will be the effect upon the 5,000 or 6,000 acres in this particular area, but those of your Lordships who know the district at all are aware that very heavy production is going on there. This is a point which must concern all of us in this House: what about the indirect effect? Are we not every day, every one of us who has any influence or
  842
  interest in the countryside, speaking to the farmers, appealing to them, telling them of the approaching food shortage and of the necessity for maximum production? How can the farmers seriously believe that the Government are in earnest when this sort of thing occurs? We know what the agricultural Departments think. On June 16, during the debate initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, I was very pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, used these words:
  "If we fail to find a solution to the problem, we shall be faced with starvation on a gigantic scale."
  What words for a Minister of the Crown to use!
  Only a fortnight or three weeks ago I noticed that Mr. Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary, who must have been speaking from the widest knowledge—although it is seldom that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs intervenes on agricultural questions—said that the Government had adopted a scheme to increase food production to the extent of £100,000,000, and he thought that it would be more suitable if it were £150,000,000. Surely the Government realise that schemes of this character, against that sort of background, cannot be allowed to go on. I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer. The considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, brought forward will doubtless have to be considered, but I would just like to say this to the 3 noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and to all those sitting on the Front Bench opposite. I say that the time has come when notice must be given to the nation that if the interests of agriculture are always to be put second to the towns, then the towns-people will not get the food that we are told they need.
  What is the nature of these demands? We have the minutes of the Metropolitan Water Board before us. They have been quoted before but I think they must be repeated. The words used are:
  "We consider that the; provision hitherto contemplated…is inadequate…to satisfy requirements in those years when the flow in the Rivers Thames and Lee is abnormally low. The Board already have sample storage accommodation for normal year."
  Is not the time coming when the choice before people living in the towns will be either to do what people in almost every

  843
  other country, certainly in our country-side, do when there is a drought—namely, take a little care of their water consumption—or sacrifice their food production? What are the figures of consumption? In 1939 the per capita consumption per head in London was 38.83; in 1945 it had gone up to nearly 44; and in 1947 (within two years) it had gone up to 52, an increase of 25 per cent. per head. Does that look as though there is a case for submerging a great area of the good soil of this country—soil that is capable of growing the food that we so badly need? I would close by appealing to the Government to undertake to call at once for a full report from the Metropolitan Water Board, so that an immediate decision can be taken and minds set at rest. I would be grateful if the noble Earl who is to reply to this debate could give an answer to that request.
  3.33 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, whenever my noble friend Lord Teviot addresses this House, I am bound to say that the impressive and almost pathetic tone which he adopts pulls very hard at my heartstrings. My noble friend has asked me to say a few words in support of his Motion, and in doing so one naturally asks what exactly are the needs of London which have caused the embarkation upon this elaborate and costly scheme, and what are the alternatives if this method of water storage is not to be adopted. But what troubles me most is, that we all, in both Houses of Parliament, admit—and the public are well aware—that we are suffering from a condition of extreme food austerity, with a prospect of no appreciable amelioration in the course of the next few years, at any rate, so far as protein food is concerned—meat, cheese and eggs, and the like, together with fat. Only last November, at the invitation of one of the largest organisations of farmers in this country, I had to reply to an appeal to the farmers by the Minister of Agriculture to provide an increased output of essential foods to the value of an additional £100,000,000 in the course of the next three years. I gave that undertaking, and went so far as to say that if what we called the "tools" were available, we could improve upon that target to the tune of from 20 to 25 per cent. That was in the light of the then status quo. But
  844
  when schemes of this sort are put forward, surely they alter the status quo, and even if harvests are favourable it will be extremely difficult to carry out our undertaking to provide this additional food.
  I am told that in this scheme 5,500 acres are directly affected, and that on that land there are no fewer than 1,200 dairy cows providing 661,000 gallons of milk a year. Surely that is a matter of some seriousness to the milk supply of London—and, after all, in nutritive value, water is not the equivalent of milk. If 661,000 gallons of milk cease to be available from this area, mainly for the requirements of London, surely, in the light of the serious and imminent shortage of food, a very strong case has to be made out by those who are promoting this scheme (backed presumably by the Government), before it can be justified in the eyes of the public. Milk is the A1 priority food for infants and children, and I should think a very strong case must be made out to justify such a scheme. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is to reply, presumably defending this scheme. I notice that he is, wisely, separated by the Leader of the House from the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who is concerned with the food output of this country. I cannot help wondering, and wondering very much, whether the mental attitude of one is entirely out of tune and sympathy with that of the other. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is going to speak in this debate because what he says will make extremely interesting hearing in the light of what he said, very emphatically, during the debate on Lord Brace's Motion. I should have thought it would be very difficult to justify, to his reason and his conscience, the embarkation on this large scheme, which admittedly would seriously curtail, if not eliminate, a large output of essential food from this important and fertile area.
  As an illustration that it is fertile land, I would remind your Lordships that a large amount of market gardening is being carried out in that area. I think we are all agreed—certainly all far-sighted agricultural scientists are agreed—that in days to come we are going to have a much more intensive form of husbandry than we have had in the past. Our husbandry is bound to be intensified, and market gardening and fruit growing

  845
  are the outstanding examples of intensive husbandry in this country. Here is an area which is progressively developing for purposes of intensive cultivation. Surely it is a particularly serious matter if that intensive cultivation is to be handicapped, and possibly frustrated altogether. What I feel inclined to ask is this: Is it more important to have proximity to the metropolitan area of the source of water, or of the source of food? In that connection, I would remind your Lordships that both Manchester and Birmingham are supplied with water from the Welsh hills, at much greater distances than is contemplated in this case. Surely, taking the long view, the more enlightened and the safe view, it would be better to embark, as is being done in several countries overseas, on supplying cities by the use of an extensive pipeline from the sources of: water in a suitable catchment area. It would enable the water to be brought to our great city—the largest city in the world—without encroaching seriously upon an important food-producing area in its, more immediate vicinity.
  Some years ago, I happened to be Chairman of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage of England and Wales, whose Report was eventually embodied in the Land Drainage Act of 1930. In the course of evidence which was given before that Commission, we discovered that large-diameter pipes were being used to a greater and greater extent from upland towns in order to carry the excess water used for the cleaning of streets, and particularly for the provision of baths, and that the excess water, carried in those large-diameter pipes instead of soaking slowly into the land and feeding springs, was producing floods in the valleys and, to some extent, a shortage of water in the uplands. We are told nowadays that we have to economise in the matter of electricity, in the matter of gas and in the matter of coal fires. Surely, rather than face the serious shortage of food which may result from this scheme, we might ask some of those who enjoy the luxury of their baths to be a little more abstemious in the use of water, especially as I am told that it is the need to provide water for baths which is the main justification for this large reservoir scheme in the Enborne Valley. I do not wish to say anything more to your Lordships than this. I cannot help feeling that the time has come when there ought to be some
  846
  perfectly independent arbiter among those who form the Government of this country to decide, on balance, in the public interest, between the claims of the public in the matter of their food and the chains of the public in the matter of other alleged requisites, many of which are amenities, if not merely luxuries. For my part, I warmly support this Motion.
  3.44 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I think that all of us in your Lordships' House who are deeply interested in this question of water supplies in Great Britain must feel extremely grateful to my noble friend who initiated this Motion. If I may refer to his own sad part in the proceedings should the water supply scheme which is proposed be carried through, I can only wish him luck and remind him of the old Latin tag from Horace, which some of your Lordships no doubt remember, Merses profundo: pulcrior exsilit.
  When I first heard of this scheme, rather indirectly, I thought, for a second, that the authorities whose duty it is to conserve and guard and use water had been for once rather wise. I imagined just one or two farms being closed (because there is an unfertile end to the Enborne Valley) and that the small waters of the Enborne were going to be used as a local supply, which would save drawing on underground water supplies. Imagine my horror when the full import of this scheme became clear to me. It would be easy to go on for a long time giving details of all the consequences which might result to this particular area, but I prefer, for the moment, to take the matter entirely on the question of principle. The two principles which matter in the use of water are that there should be no unnecessary use of land, and, in my judgment, that there should be the minimum drainage of our underground sources of supply which are getting lower and lower every year. Now this scheme, it is true, leaves our underground sources of water alone, but, as my noble friend has suggested, threatens to create a pestilential swamp instead of a Lake which might be used for fisheries or might otherwise provide amenities for the people.
  It is time, I feel, that we started to think out a policy with regard to our water supply on much more serious lines than we already have done. We should not

  847
  always go on evolving piecemeal schemes, as my noble friend has already said. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by developing this point, but if the students of demography are right, it would appear that the population of London, and indeed of this country as a whole, is certainly not going to increase by the time this dam is likely to be completed and the water is ready for use. I am told that the target for its actual completion will probably be somewhere between 1955 and 1960. One knows that targets often do not prove as easy of achievement as may have been expected, and I think one can safely add a further five years to that time. Now it is almost certain that after the lapse of all those years the population will have dropped substantially, owing to the falling birthrate. I would like to ask if this scheme is related to any long-term policy for the future of this country as regards emigration. Have we any real idea fixed in our minds of what we want the population of this country to be in the future? Are we to continue carrying out schemes of this nature which, having regard to the probable changes in the population, may prove not merely redundant but even harmful? I think we have to give weight to considerations of this kind. Planning big and thinking afterwards, as we have been doing, is not the right way to go to work. It is better that we should think first, then plan and execute our plans according to our needs.
  Another point that strikes me is this. If huge urban aggregations are to continue to exist they will force upon the countryside more large water-supply lakes or a lower water table for the countryside, to the great detriment of health and agriculture. It is time we realised that these great urban aggregations cannot continue indefinitely, if we are to remain a healthy country. If we are to carry on with schemes of this sort (I remember the case of Mr. Secrett's land at Esher, before the war—100 acres of the best market garden land in the country), if, in order to supply water to great cities like London, this sort of thing is to take place, then I suggest that great cities must be dispersed to positions where they can be watered more efficiently. That, I submit, is a proposal which we should regard very seriously. If, in the meantime—and these things must move slowly—we have difficulty in finding
  848
  the means of supplying water to great urban populations, then surely it is time we set about doing a little research with regard to the possibilities of using sea-water, the by-products of which might well be employed for many other purposes. We should look into this matter with a view to obtaining from the sea water fit for human consumption. If only a thousandth part of the money which has gone into research work connected with atom bombs and other means of destruction had been devoted to such an end, we might well have solved that particular problem, to the benefit of everyone in the world. For years now some of us have been urging the great seriousness of this water supply problem and the danger into which the whole country is running with regard to the water supplies required for large urban aggregations and increased water usage. It is time we thought over the real business again from start to finish.
  3.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long; the ground has already been covered fairly adequately. I have no personal or intimate knowledge of the Enborne Valley, beyond having driven across it on more than one occasion and knowing generally something about the district, but I am compelled for several reasons to intervene in the debate for a few minutes. In the first place, I think it is horrifying that for the sake of storing water some nine square miles of productive agricultural land should be lost to the nation. I would like your Lordships to realise that in that part of the world, as in my part of the world, and I think probably almost everywhere, the bottoms of the valleys are the most valuable land and the most productive. But there is more to it than that. If we destroy agriculture in the valley, that has a distinctly deleterious effect on agriculture on the higher land surrounding, which is complementary to the valley. Therefore, though the submerging of nine square miles may be contemplated, there is an unknown number of additional square miles on which agriculture will be completely altered and on which production may well be considerably lowered.
  The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, gave the House some impressive figures of the increased consumption of water in the London area. They are progressive in-

  849
  creases over a number of years and, so far as one can see, there is no reason to suppose that that increased consumption will not go on for a considerable time. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that baths were largely the trouble. But God forbid that we should prevent people having baths put in their houses, or having interior sanitation! That is a very necessary improvement in the living standards of our people. So I think we may take it that consumption per head of water is likely to be on the up grade for a considerable number of years to come. Unless I am wrong, this is the first case in which it is proposed to take a whole valley, in the same way as valleys have been taken in Wales, to supply water for a town like London. There are no Welsh hills near to London, of course, and the Metropolitan Water Board, who have put forward this suggestion, have cast their eyes upon a productive valley some fifty to fifty-five miles from London, Having done that once, and in view of the probable continued increase in the consumption of water, are they going to cast their eyes on any other suitable valleys within that range of London? The prospect is so terrible that one can hardly contemplate it, because all the valleys within that range are productive to a greater or lesser degree, and they are all more productive than the Welsh hills. It will make a very serious inroad upon our agricultural production if more valleys are taken for the purpose of supplying water to London.
  That is the point I want to make. It puts any of us in fear of what may happen in the future, when more and more water is required for London. I am certain that the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government will say the suggestion is put forward only as a tentative one, that there will be a local inquiry and that, finally, there wall have to be a private Bill, which can be opposed. But it is none too early to check the efforts of any water board, if those efforts are directed in directions which are—as, in my view, these are—against the interests of the nation. I would reinforce with all the power at my command the suggestion that has been put forward by my noble friend, Lord Portsmouth, that the time has come, and indeed, is past, when there should be a comprehensive investigation into the whole question of the demand for and supply of water, so that we may have
  850
  some reasonable plan which will not do more harm to the nation than is inevitable. As has been pointed out, noble Lords opposite claim to be experts in planning. Here is a chance to show their skill. They also published a document called Let us Face the Future. Here is a little bit of future up to which, perhaps, they can face.
  3.58 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, let me say at the outset, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and to all the other noble Lords who have spoken, that there is no lack of understanding on the part of His Majesty's Government of the very natural anxiety of those people who would be affected by the putting into operation of any scheme for flooding the Enborne Valley. We have every sympathy with the alarm of the 4,000 to 5,000 persons, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, alluded—people who might become, as he said, displaced persons, deprived of their homes and dispossessed of their property, if such a scheme were carried out. We are no less anxious than the noble Lord, and the noble Lords, Lord De La Warr and Lord Bledisloe, to make the best possible use of every inch of good agricultural land and to avoid any unnecessary interference with the production of homegrown foodstuffs, But I hope that I can convince the House and the noble Lords who have spoken that, in view of the facts, all these fears and anxieties, which are genuine and are very generally evinced, are really a little unreasonable and exaggerated. I shall do my best to give the House the facts, which was the request put to me by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr.
  Before I proceed to give the facts, may I answer two questions addressed to me by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr? He asked whether the scheme has been considered, by the National Water Advisory Committee. It has not, because there is at present no scheme. When such a scheme is prepared, it will no doubt be submitted for the opinion of this expert body.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I suppose the noble Earl has seen the minutes of the meeting of the Metropolitan Water Board on April 30 of this year, when the Board discussed a very definite scheme.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have seen the copy of the minutes which the noble

  851
  Earl was good enough to pass over to the Government Front Bench. I have studied it in the last few minutes, and I intend to allude to it in a moment. The second question was: Will the Government ask for an immediate report from the Metropolitan Water Board? We will certainly inform ourselves of the present position in relation to this matter, so far as the Metropolitan Water Board can help us, but I think a full report would be a little unreasonable at this stage, when the Board themselves do not know whether they wish to promote such a scheme. Although it would be reasonable to expect them to make up their minds as soon as possible. I think it would be unreasonable to expect the Board to make up their minds before a preliminary survey has been taken, because it is not certain whether the land is suitable for the purpose they have in mind. I will gladly obtain the latest information about the position, but I do not think the report which the noble Earl had in mind could be compiled by the Board at this stage in their own consideration of the matter.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe said that I would presumably reply in support of the scheme for flooding the Enborne Valley.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I said only that I was prepared to support the Motion. I know little about the scheme.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I thought the noble Viscount said that I, speaking for the Government, would presumably support the scheme.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I beg your pardon.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think I have interpreted what the noble Viscount said correctly. Again, I can only assure him that I shall not defend the scheme because, so far as we in the Government know, no such scheme exists; it has not come before us for consideration. We have not been acquainted with any such scheme, so it is impossible for me to take sides, and I certainly shall not defend it.
  May I proceed, quite briefly, to describe the facts of the situation? My right honourable friend the Minister of Health a short while ago in another place gave an undertaking that he would carefully weigh the merits of any scheme for water-
  852
  works in the Enborne Valley in relation to other alternative schemes, and that he would give full consideration to any objections which might be raised against such a scheme, if and when it was formulated. He also said at that time that he would deal as expeditiously as possible with any application that might be made by the Metropolitan Water Board for the approval of such a project. We appreciate the time factor just as keenly as any noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We do not want these people to be kept in suspense a moment longer than is necessary. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend will, if requested to do so, make up his mind on such a scheme as quickly as he can. But I would like your Lordships to be absolutely clear—I think there may be some misunderstanding—that at present no such application has been made to the Ministry of Health. There has been no application from the Metropolitan Water Board for a scheme for constructing waterworks in the Enborne Valley.
  At the same time, my right honourable friend is fully aware of the fact that the Metropolitan Water Board have under consideration the possible construction of a reservoir in that part of the country. That is borne out by a copy of the minutes of the Metropolitan Water Board, which the noble Earl was good enough to pass over to this Front Bench, and which he himself quoted in the course of the debate. I think it is evident from these minutes—at least, this is my construction of them—that the consideration of this matter, even by the Metropolitan Water Board, is at an early stage. What strikes me is that the Works and Stores Committee of the Board state, according to the minutes, that they are not yet making any recommendation to the Board but are merely informing them of certain considerations they have in mind. In these circumstances, I am sure the House will agree that it is impossible for my right honourable friend to express any opinion on the merits or demerits of such a proposal. Indeed, until such a scheme had been thoroughly examined and the objections to it fairly considered, it would be highly improper for the Minister to do so, in view of the judicial position which, under the Water Acts, he occupies (as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, appreciates) in any matter of this nature.

  853
  It is the business of the Minister to consider the pros and cons when a scheme is put to him. He cannot prejudge the issue by saying in advance whether or not he objects to a possible scheme.
  Let me take your Lordships back in time, and see what has happened. The Minister received a formal application from the Board for authority to enter on and survey certain lands in the parish of Brimpton in the Enborne Valley. What the Board had in mind in making this application was that, subject to a satisfactory outcome of the survey, they wished to acquire this area of land for the purposes of their undertaking. That, clearly, was the object which they had in mind when applying for authority for a survey. They wished to to sink experimental boreholes to ascertain the nature of the subsoil and its suitability for the construction of a dam. The noble Lord, who knows a great deal more about these engineering matters than I do, appreciates that if the subsoil is porous, then it is no good trying to construct a dam, because the water will filter away underneath. That is one of the things to be ascertained by an experimental survey. What has happened since then? Objections to this application to make an experimental survey have been lodged by the owner of the land and by the occupiers, and arrangements are, therefore, being made for a local hearing, to be held at the earliest date convenient to the owner. The owner is at present away, so it has had to be postponed until August to meet his convenience.
  I must emphasise the fact—if it needs any emphasis—that this hearing will be confined to the subject matter of the application: namely, to the question of granting permission to undertake a survey. The inspector who is charged with the conduct of the hearing will not, of course, be authorised to entertain any representations on the larger issue which has been discussed this afternoon—the merits or demerits of the proposal for constructing a reservoir and for flooding the Enborne Valley in order to provide the water. What the inspector will do is to examine the possibility, and do his best to arrange, by agreement, a programme for entering and sinking boreholes which will cause the minimum inconvenience to the owner of the land, and the minimum interference with agriculture. He will try to get an agreement with the
  854
  interests affected by this experimental survey. The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will naturally be represented at the hearing. My right honourable friend and his Department have a very intimate concern with a matter of this kind. If as a result of the hearing (we cannot, of course, at this stage prejudge the outcome of the hearing) authority is given for this conduct of a survey, I would remind your Lordships that the Water Act provides for compensation to be paid to any affected person for damage or disturbance by entering or survey operations. There would, therefore, be no hardship if that course were adopted.
  EARL DE LA WARR: No financial hardship.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Certainly there would be no financial hardship. I think I ought also to emphasise that, even if the authority requested by the Board is granted—namely, authority to conduct a preliminary survey—the Minister would not thereby be committed in any way as to the acceptance of the larger scheme for which the survey is intended as a preliminary. His hands will still be entirely free to accept or reject any larger scheme that may be submitted to him. It is clear, I think, that at this stage no binding statement can be made by the Government on the proposed scheme for reservoir construction to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and other noble Lords have referred.
  If the Metropolitan Water Board are given authority to make their survey, and if the results of the survey are satisfactory, it still rests with the Board to formulate detailed proposals for a reservoir in the Enborne Valley and to seek powers, as they must do, from the Ministry of Health, subject to the approval of Parliament, to carry them out. It is open to the Board to seek those powers in two ways. I should like to make the procedure absolutely clear, because I think it has a direct bearing on the part which your Lordships' House and another place will still have to play in the future if this matter is proceeded with. The Board would be able either to apply for an order or orders under the Water Acts, or, if they so desire it, to promote a private Bill. In either case Parliament, of course, will have an opportunity for discussing the matter and for deciding one way or another.
  LORD TEVIOT: In either event?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes. I want it to be perfectly clear that in either procedure Parliament has the last word. If the Board choose to apply for an order, the Minister, of course, will be bound to examine their proposals and to reach a decision on them, after consideration of all the arguments placed before him for and against the order. If objections are received, the Minister is also bound to hold a local inquiry, and at that inquiry every opportunity will be given to those interested to present their case. In either event, whether powers are sought by an order or by a private Bill, there will be ample opportunity for the matter to be discussed and decided in Parliament. If matters reach that stage, it will then be open to all the noble Lords who have spoken, and to any other noble Lords who have views on this subject, to raise with the Government points at issue which have not yet been resolved. I need hardly assure noble Lords that such views will be given the fullest consideration. I hope that I have been able to explain the position as clearly as possible, and make absolutely definite the point that the Government have not yet been able to reach any view about a scheme which has not been submitted to them, and furthermore, that everything which has been said in this debate will be most carefully considered by the Minister, if, and when, he is asked to lend his mind to a scheme of the sort which noble Lords have been discussing.
  4.13 p.m.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wish to intervene for only one moment in this matter, to say that I have listened to this discussion and that, although I have no direct knowledge of this district, the facts which have emerged during the debate as to the way in which this particular area is being treated have horrified me and, I think, other of your Lordships also. It seems quite clear that a great deal has been going on locally which has already had the effect of sterilising a good deal of the development of that part of the country. Consequently, I consider that a debate of this sort is useful for ventilating the matter and perhaps checking this sort of thing in the future. I should like to say how much those of us who have been thinking of these matters for many years agree with the noble Earl, Lord
  856
  Portsmouth. It is deplorable that these things should be dealt with piecemeal, instead of the important question of the country's position with regard to water being reviewed as a whole. When the requirements of a vast area such as London are being considered, it is all the more deplorable that encouragement should be given to any board to go forward with a scheme without at the same time some action being taken on many of the reports which have been made to the country and Parliament on the question of water supplies.
  I rise to-day only to say that those of us who are acquainted with this subject feel very strongly that a great deal has been going on in regard to this particular scheme which is regrettable, and I hope that every step will be taken to see there is no delay in considering the matter. The effect of the measures that have in fact been taken are considerable and, I think, deplorable. The needs of agriculture and other points have been raised and dealt with by those who can speak with greater authority than I have. I hope that, as a result of this discussion, some suitable action will be taken by His Majesty's Government at no distant future date.
  4.15 p.m.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, particularly on the aspect of the Enborne Valley scheme. I regret very much that in the reply made by the noble Earl nothing was said on the wider subject of conservation of water, which is of great importance. I suggest to him that the time has come where we should have a survey of our national resources of water, and then co-ordinate that with our demands. The whole position is becoming impossible. There are far too many ministerial authorities. The Ministry of Health allow boring, and do not consult the agriculture interests. I know of boring of a very serious kind which is proceeding under the authority of the Minister of Health. What I suggest is that if we had had a general survey and a unified authority, a scheme of this kind would never have been put forward.
  4.17 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I wish first of all to thank all my noble friends who have supported me in this debate. They have put forward cogent points relative

  857
  to this subject, and I am extremely grateful to them. There is one thing which fell from the noble Earl when he replied upon which I should comment. I am grateful to him for his reply, but I cannot see that I am unreasonable in wanting a report. I consider that since the scheme was first initiated in 1908, and was reintroduced twelve years ago, there must be a vast amount of information which is available to the present Metropolitan Water Board. After all, we know that there are these geological maps which anybody can see to-day. They are compiled by eminent geologists and those maps alone should enable them to get on with the job much faster than they are doing, and to avoid this intensive boring which is going to take place. I can tell the noble Earl that over this area, so far as my studies of the geological maps have gone, about 70 per cent. of it is Bagshot sand. Under that sand, if you dig deep enough, there is London clay, which will hold the water up. Once the Bagshot sand is saturated, the whole thing will hold water. Eminent engineers and geologists will answer a question like that in five minutes.
  I think we should be able to look forward to a report on the whole subject at an early date. In view of the fact that there are thousands of people in this appalling suspense, and the fact that there is drastic curtailment of all developments of any kind in that area, it must mean deterioration in everything. Everything will be held up, as I said in my speech—housing, local water supplies even, building, and other things. It is a pretty serious situation to contemplate. I do not know whether the noble Earl can tell me whether he has any idea as to when we are likely to have a report. Can he give me any indication in regard to that?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not think it is reasonable to expect the Government to express any view until the scheme has been submitted on the narrower question raised by the noble Lord. I am sure the question will be considered by the Minister of Health before he decides to allow a survey to be proceeded with. It is clearly one of the
  858
  very relevant considerations that the Minister will have to bear in mind before he decides to allow these people to go ahead and enter land, and so on. I think perhaps that meets the noble Lord's point.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Meanwhile, the suspense goes on.
  LORD TEVIOT: Perhaps I may appear rather aggressive, but in fact I am asking the Government to help. I do not blame the Government; they could not have done anything more than they have done at the moment. But I am asking them to help in this situation, so far as they can, and that was the reason I explained how detrimental the scheme would be to the various Government Departments and Ministries. I hoped that, in view of that, the Government might set up an inquiry with a view to finding out from the various Ministries whether they would be agreeable to this scheme. The Minister of Agriculture, for instance must be very perturbed about what is to happen. Then there are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Transport, and others. I make the suggestion that the Government should hold an inquiry into the points raised to-day, with a view to arriving at some conclusion on the question at as early a date as possible, not only because of the inadvisability of the scheme from the national point of view, but also because of the appalling uncertainty which is being caused to the thousands of people who are involved. I hope I gathered correctly that, whenever the scheme is set out, every facility will, be given for experts and counsel on the opposition side to ventilate their ideas and argue their case—I am grateful to the noble Earl for acquiescing.
  I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have supported me in this debate, and also to thank the noble Earl for the comprehensive answer he has given. I hope he will bear in mind what he has said, and will do his best to see that this scheme is "knocked on the head" as soon as possible. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave; withdrawn.

  LAYING OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE PARLIAMENT (INTERPRETATION) BILL, [H.L.]
  4.25 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I must apologise for having to return to this difficult and, I must confess, troublesome matter. Your Lordships may like to be reminded of the position before the Statutory Instruments Act came into force. Our practice in this House with regard to the laying of instruments was this. They had to be laid as soon as convenient; the instrument might come into effect before it was laid; and, if the House was not sitting, what happened was that the instrument was made and came into effect, and thereafter, when the House was sitting again, the instrument was laid before it. We have not hitherto allowed the laying of instruments when the House was not sitting. That is historically correct, I think.
  When the Statutory Instruments Act was passed—it came into effect on January 1, 1948—we had to promulgate new Standing Orders in regard to it. The broad conception of the Statutory Instruments Act was that, as a rule, instruments should be laid before they came into effect. The question arose of how we should provide for this matter in our Standing Orders, and it was proposed in the Standing Orders that we should provide for a form of laying which we had not hitherto had—that is, a form of laying when the House was not in Session by delivering the document to the Office of the Clerk of Parliaments. In another place, when such a Standing Order was put forward, it was accepted, and I think there was no criticism of it. But when in December last we propounded our Standing Orders here, grave doubt was expressed as to whether we had any right to make such a Standing Order. The mere fact that they have made such an Order in another place is no reason why we should make such an Order here.
  Everybody concedes, of course, that one cannot modify the provisions of an Act of Parliament by a Standing Order: that is manifest. And the real problem was: Are we modifying, altering or quail-
  860
  fying the provisions of the Act of Parliament by the Standing Orders which we proposed? I personally took the view that we were merely expounding what we meant by "laying" and that if, for instance, the Courts had to interpret what was the "laying" of a document, they would turn to your Lordships' House and say: "What is the current practice for which you provide?" On the other hand, it was quite true to say that the Act had to be read in the light of the exception, and there was an exception which provided that in certain cases documents might come into force before they were laid. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, expressed a view which was different from mine, and it was obvious that this was a matter of considerable controversy. Your Lordships may remember that we finally decided to refer the matter to a Select Committee and in due course, if and when this Bill passes its Third Reading, I must put a Motion on the Paper to discharge the Select Committee.
  Without going into secrets into which I should not go, I may tell your Lordships that there is a remarkable difference of legal opinion on this question. The officials of your Lordships' House differ from the officials of another place; and that eminently respectable body of men, the Parliamentary Counsel, are divided in two about this matter—each, no doubt, maintaining with no little heat his own opinion. And I myself have had the misfortune to differ from some of those from whom I ought not to differ. So I think it is obvious that there is some room for difference of opinion about this matter. Who is right and who is wrong is a point which, perhaps, we shall never be able to resolve; but the object of this Bill is to resolve the doubt for us. It is undesirable that there should be a doubt about this sort of matter. It is undesirable that the practice of one House should differ from the practice of another House. It is certainly desirable that peace should be restored to the Parliamentary draftsmen's dovecot. Therefore, I introduce this Bill.
  I shall invite your Lordships to pass hereafter Standing Orders which will be substantially in the form of the Standing Orders which we discussed previously. The substance of the Bill is to make it plain that we can, without breach of any

  861
  Act of Parliament, pass those Standing Orders. The effect of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be to enable us to make Standing Orders providing for laying, notwithstanding that the House is not in Session. I believe that to be a desirable thing to do. I agree that the position has not hitherto been impossible, because there is a proviso which requires a notification to be given to the Speaker or to the Lord Chancellor, as the case may be, of the fact that an Order has come into effect before it has been laid. But suppose that we did not pass these Standing Orders, that a Recess came and that, during that Recess, several statutory instruments were made. When the House reassembled, I should have to read out to your Lordships the list of the Statutory Orders which had been made, and I should give this explanation as to why they had not been laid. The explanation would be that the House was not in Session. I do not think that anybody would gain very much therefrom. So we considered that it was desirable to be able to make these Standing Orders. I had the advantage of the advice be the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I discussed it with the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, were good enough to join our consultations and, on the whole, we considered, that probably the best course to adopt was to introduce this Bill. I am sorry that we have had this difficulty about the Statutory Instruments Act. But, whilst not being enthusiastic about the Bill, we think that in view of the difficulty which we have come up against, this is the right course to adopt. If I may do so, I should like to advise your Lordships that the interests of the House would best be served by passing a Bill on these lines.
  There is one other matter I might mention. The Statutory Instruments Act did not contemplate—perhaps it did not like to contemplate—the possibility of a vacancy in the office of Lord Chancellor. Even Lord Chancellors wear out, or, for various reasons, leave office, and that also happens to Speakers. We have taken the opportunity, whilst dealing with this matter, of providing for what is to happen whilst there is a vacancy in the office of Lord Chancellor or Speaker.
  862
  That is the substance of this Bill. I have indicated that if and when it passes its Third Reading, I shall put down upon the Order Paper a Motion asking that the Select Committee which now becomes unnecessary shall be discharged. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  4.34 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given a perfectly fair and clear account of this storm in a teacup. It seems to me that the course which he now proposes to take is entirely justified. I hope that any who may have been inclined to agree with me upon the earlier occasion will agree with me now, that we should accept the proposal made in this Bill. It is never worth while going back upon disputes but, so that we may be clear about what was involved, may I say that our difficulty was simply this? Of course, nobody would suggest—the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, himself stated this clearly last December—that a Standing Order adopted by this House, which is a matter of internal regulation, could in itself contradict an Act of Parliament. Of course, it could not. The question, which I think everybody will agree was troublesome, was whether possibly the Standing Order, without some amendment of the Statute Hook, would not have been a nullity, because, according to one view, the Standing Order was not consistent with the Act of Parliament.
  I thought that a court which had to decide that would construe the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, when it used the word "laying" by inquiring—and I dare say by taking evidence—as to what was the meaning of "laying" a document at the time when the Statutory Instruments Act was passed. I cannot imagine that a court would do anything else. If that were so, it seemed to me that the court were likely to say: "Whatever Standing Order you pass, we say that anything you do when the House is not sitting is wrong. It is not laying, according to the Statute." However, we need not go into than. I am relieved to know that the view which I expressed seems to have created some division of opinion in the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. If that is so, I am more

  863
  than rewarded. The real reward is that we can now, by common consent, agree to pass this measure, which will have more force than a Standing Order for it will be an Act of Parliament. I would almost have thought that it would be more appropriately described as an "Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946"; but never mind about that now. It has the same result.
  The only other thing I wish to say is this. What we are doing here does not really decide the question as to what Standing Order we should make. I think it only fair to say, an the presence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—because he was good enough to confer with some of us—that while I am sorry that we should make a Standing Order in the form now suggested (and I think it tends to give rather more power to the executive and less power to the House), I do not think we ought to keep up this controversy. Therefore, when on a subsequent day it is proposed that we should move a Standing Order in this sort of form—I do not know if it is any comfort to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to know this—I shall not raise any objection to it. There is a great deal to be said for getting a scheme in this House which is more or less like the scheme which has been adopted in another place. I can quite see the inconvenience of having Standing Orders that differ.
  There is one thing in the Standing Order which is really of value. I am sure that the intention of Parliament, when it carried the Act of 1946, was that, if a Minister found it essential—I am referring to the language of the proviso—that a statutory instrument should be made when Parliament was not sitting, there should at any rate be some machinery or process by which the Members of the House should have a chance of knowing about it; it should not just be put in a pigeon-hole. I note with pleasure that it is proposed that there should be some intimation—or so I understand.
  However, that is all for the future. In effect, the present proposal meets everything that I said because, instead of trying to decide by Standing Order the course to be adopted, it is to be done by the authority of an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament nobody can gainsay. There is no court in our country that will
  864
  ever seek to discuss the question whether or not an Act of Parliament is valid. From the point of view of the Judges, any Act of Parliament is valid. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has dealt with the matter with great candour and with his usual clearness, and I think his conclusion is one which the House ought unanimously to accept.
  4.40 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this has been a difficult and troublesome point, but I agree with the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken that the solution now proposed is the best one for dealing with that situation. And I think that your Lordships' House would do well to accept it. I would also associate myself with the expression of appreciation of what we owe to the Lord Chancellor for the way in which he has dealt with the controversy, the echos of which have apparently spread far outside the confines of your Lordships' House.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (REDCAR) BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWAN-AGE) BILL.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.