HL Deb 17 December 1964 vol 262 cc532-5
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether consideration has been given to the building of a dam across the Solway where the railway bridge was originally built, with a view to providing, quickly and cheaply, an adequate water supply for Manchester and the North-West of England, as well as enabling a shorter road route to be built between Carlisle and the industrial area in the South-West of Scotland.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES)

Yes, my Lords. A preliminary investigation of these proposals, and of the similar Morecambe Bay Barrage, has been made as a basis for considering whether expenditure on further technical studies of the feasibility of one or both of these barrage schemes would be justified.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware that it is a matter of real urgency that examination of this Solway scheme should take place because of the urgent need of water for Manchester? Is he not also aware that it is quite an easy matter, requiring not much technical study, to take the water from the Solway into Hawes Water, which is only 30 miles away? And is he not further aware that already communications with Scotland are to be improved—so why not combine both the provision of roads and the supply of water over such a barrage by urging the matter along at the greatest possible speed?

LORD RHODES

My Lords, we are aware of the great importance of the need for water for the North-West, particularly Manchester, but I would remind the noble Lord that this is an immense project. The preliminary consideration which has been given to this project will, I hope, eventually lead to a scheme which is more feasible, but we must have accurate preliminaries.

LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL

But is the noble Lord aware that this scheme is not at all like the Morecambe Barrage scheme? I have photographs here of the old railway bridge that ran across only a mile and a quarter, and that shows that many of the technical difficulties which might need to be considered properly for the Morecambe Barrage scheme really do not apply to this scheme. It really is not a very large and difficult project, as so much technical information is already available.

LORD RHODES

My Lords, the two schemes must be considered together. It is necessary to have in mind the return on investment from each scheme because of the competing claims which will be made on the nation's capital investment resources over the coming years. The main benefits of both barrages are the supply of water to the North-West, and they must therefore be thought of as competing projects.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether any such barrage scheme is being considered for the River Dee?

LORD RHODES

My Lords, I understand there is; a meeting has already been held between officials of the Government Departments concerned and the Cheshire and Flint County Councils, together with the Dee and Clwyd River Board.

THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE

My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will consider the Solway and Morecambe barrages as matters not just of local or regional significance but of great national importance? I use the word "national" because there is a vast territory on the West of Northern England and Scotland that is comparatively sparsely populated and underdeveloped and there is tremendous potential there for the nation as a whole. Is he aware that development of such transport schemes as these would not only greatly facilitate agricultural and industrial development but also maintain a more even distribution of population?

LORD RHODES

Yes, my Lords, I can give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that all these matters are being very seriously considered.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the preliminary investigation is primarily concerned with the feasibility of each of the projects, or with the priority to be given to one or the other? What I think we should like to know is this. Supposing that both the projects are found to be feasible and a priority is determined, will the mere fact that a priority is determined not rule out the second project for good and all? Can the noble Lord answer that question and also say what the approach is to be in this connection? Can he give any indication of the funds allocated for the preliminary investigation and how it is to be carried out? Is he aware that there has been a suggestion that an Institute should be set up at least for the Solway project, and has that been brought to his attention? And, further, can he inform the House of the attitude of the Government to it?

LORD RHODES

My Lords, that supplementary contains rather a lot of questions, but I will do my best. The Solway Firth Scheme is under joint examination by the Scottish Development Group and the North-West Study Group, which is an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the Department of Economic Affairs. The North-West Study Group is also examining the Morecambe Bay scheme. May I say that the preliminary investigations on both these schemes are absolutely necessary before it can be decided whether the Government should go on to a feasibility examination? After the preliminary investigations there is a very costly procedure—namely, the full feasibility study.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, since I remember getting my fingers rather burned over the question of Manchester water, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can give us any information about Manchester Corporation's present intentions, and how they are proposing to meet the urgent needs of Manchester and the region for more water?

LORD RHODES

No, my Lords. Although I live close to that great city, I am not in their confidence.