HL Deb 27 February 1951 vol 170 cc622-6

4.8 p.m.

VISCOUNT ESHER rose to move to resolve, That the Hanningfield Water Order, 1950, made by the Minister of Health on November 11, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on January 24, 1951, be annulled. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving that the Hanningfield Water Order, 1950, be annulled, I am well aware that I am pursuing a lost cause. These proposals were considered by a senior inspector of the Ministry of Health at a local inquiry in March, 1950. The Minister accepted the case of the companies and an order was made by the Minister of Health in November, 1950. This is a £4,000,000 scheme, and obviously at this stage I cannot hope that the Government will agree to annulling it. Nor would it be reasonable to refer it to a Committee of both Houses of Parliament, since the expense involved for the people who oppose it, who have only limited resources, would be great, and to do so would not be justified by our chances of winning. All I would do is to appeal to the Minister to go slowly, to take many bites at this cherry, and not to rush at once into the full expenditure that is necessary.

My interest is on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. The Minister proposes to drown under his reservoir a charming and interesting house, built in 1560, which I think should be preserved, if possible, for the country. I remember once being in a small boat on the Nile and looking down over the side at the temples of Philae down at the bottom of the Nile. That is the effect the Minister is going to produce on this very interesting house. I do not believe that Mr. Dalton is the man to inundate the past unless he is forced to do it. No doubt if the estimates and anticipations of the companies turn out to be correct, when and if the population increases, when and if the new town of Basildon is built, then we shall have to destroy this house of"Fremnells"which I am trying to save. But surely it is not necessary to destroy it now, at once. The promoters of the inquiry admitted that it was not possible to carry out the whole works with great expedition. Nor is it necessary to destroy the house in order to obtain storage of 790,000,000 gallons of water instead of the 1,500,000,000 gallons provided for in the complete scheme. If the companies were to build the dam at the northern end of the acquired property, and raise the water level to 155 feet, this ancient house would at any rate be temporarily preserved, yet nothing would have been done to preclude the ultimate building of the southern dam and the ultimate raising of the water level to 180 feet when and if the population estimates are fulfilled.

I appeal to the Minister to go slowly on this scheme. It involves £4,000,000 of public money, which expenditure was contemplated before rearmament and the financial restrictions which will ensue from that, and before increased taxation came into view. This expenditure must be most painful to the Treasury, as the sacrifice of agricultural land must be to the Ministry of Food. So much depends upon when and if estimates, which are by no means certain, and which may turn out to be excessive, mature. In such case, the money the fruitful land and this old house will have been sunk to no purpose. I feel that the failure in Socialist enterprise is due not to the projects that they undertake (in fact, I think they have much more imagination in their projects than the capitalists had in the past) but to the lack of caution in the use of other people's money. I strongly urge that a little caution in this case, where £4,000,000 of public money is involved, will do no harm to their ultimate scheme, the second half of which may turn out to be unnecessary. I strongly urge that the companies should be required by the Minister to proceed with this work by stages, to take every possible step to delay until the last possible moment the inundation of "Fremnells" and the construction of any work affecting this house. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That the Hanning-field Water Order, 1950, made by the Minister of Health on November 11, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on January 24, 1951, be annulled. (Viscount Esher.)

4.15 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, I have heard it said that two essentials in a good advocate are that he knows his case and that he presents it wisely, kindly and effectively. That has certainly been done in this case. But the noble Viscount asks a good deal when he wishes me to approach the Minister—and let us keep in mind the present Minister of Local Government and Planning—to"go slow"and not to rush. It would be something to ask the present Minister that, in regard to any venture on which he is engaged. But in this case, having regard to the circumstances, I can tell the noble Viscount that my right honourable friend will go slowly for the reasons mentioned—namely, the substantial changes since the Order was made last November. I feel sure that those reasons will cause him to go more slowly than he intended. How slowly he will go the noble Viscount will not expect me to say to-day.

The proposal that the work should proceed by stages may be possible, but I cannot give a firm undertaking that this is one of those plans that it is possible to take stage by stage. However, if it is, I can assure the noble Viscount that the work will be done in stages. I asked for particulars with regard to the house,"Fremnells,"and I have been advised that it is an interesting 16th century house. It has been altered a great deal and restored. I am advised that it has no archaeological interest, neither is it considered to have great historical value. It has not been scheduled as an ancient monument or a building of archaeological interest. But there is general agreement that it is a very nice house, with considerable charm, and that everything should be done to preserve it. However, I wish to be quite frank with the noble Viscount: it is doubtful whether the scheme can be so arranged to safeguard this house, and I can hold out no hope for its preservation if the scheme goes forward in its entirety I thank the noble Viscount for the pleasant way in which he put forward his Motion.

VISCOUNT ESHER

My Lords, my remarks have received a much more favourable reception from the Government than I expected and, in view of that fact, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes past four o'clock.