On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to an error in the HANSARD report of yesterday's proceedings? In the record of the Division, in Columns 2095–8, the Tellers are transferred, that is to say, the Government Whips are shown as having voted against the Government. In order to save the future prospects of my hon. and loyal Friends will you, Sir, have the record altered accordingly?

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for drawing my attention to this alarming error. I will see that a correction is made in HANSARD.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The substance of the proposed new Clause represents one of the most valuable additions made to this Bill in Committee, and should like to express my indebtedness to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), whose joint ideas on this subject are embodied in this new Clause. It provides a code which will enable requisitions to be made, in proper cases, for the laying of water mains, not only after houses have been built but before houses have been started. I am satisfied, and I think the House is, that this will be a substantial advantage in connection with the housing programme.

I am sure we are all indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend for carrying out the undertaking he gave in Committee to transfer these provisions of the Schedule into the Bill itself, so that they would become immediately operative. There is one small point which he might perhaps examine before the Bill concludes its passage through Parliament, that is, whether it would not be desirable to give the alternative to paying a deposit, of giving a guarantee which would be satisfactory to the undertaker. It might be desirable to provide that variance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Minister to require records and information from persons abstracting water.)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, leave out "his domestic purposes," and insert "the domestic purposes of his household."

Some doubt was expressed in Committee in the course of the Debate on Clause 6, of the clarity and definition of the exception provided with regard to water abstracted from a well by an individual for his domestic purposes. It was felt that that might cover, for example, water abstracted by the owner of a block of flats, and that the whole of that block of flats might be considered as coming within "his domestic purposes." With a view to making the position quite clear I am moving this Amendment.

While I am devoid of legal knowledge, I think the Minister has reached an excellent solution. These words seem to me adequately to fill the bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Facilities for obtaining information as to underground water.)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, at end, insert:

"(6) The person sinking a well or bore hole or (if a different person) the owner or occupier of the land on which it is sunk may give notice in writing to the said Committee requiring them to treat as confidential any copy of or extract from the journal required to be kept under Sub-section (1) of this Section or any specimen taken under that Sub-section, and the Committee shall thereupon not allow that copy, extract or specimen, except in so far as it contains or affords information as to water resources and supplies, to be published or shown to any person not being an officer of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research or of the Ministry of Health, unless the person giving the notice consents thereto:

Provided that, if at any time the Committee give notice to that person that in their opinion, his consent is unreasonably withheld, then that person may, within three months after the notice is given by the Committee, appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, but if at the expiration of that period no such appeal has been made, or if after hearing the appeal the Commission do not make an order restraining them from doing so, the Committee may proceed as if such consent had been given."

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House I should like to refer to the next Amendment standing in my name—in page 5, line 47, at end, insert:

"(6) The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-three of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, shall apply to any copies of, or extracts from journals and to any specimens or material sent to or taken or inspected by the said Committee or any officer appointed by them except so far as such journals, specimens and material contain or furnish knowledge and information as to water resources and supplies."

They both relate to the same subject. This matter has been fully discussed, and we have been given hopes that these Amendments will be favourably received, and that the protection which is given in them to people supplying specimen materials will be accepted.

I beg to second the Amendment.

There has been some discussion on the extent to which information obtained in the course of working wells or bore-holes should be wholly public or confidential. There are certain matters regarding which it is right and proper that arrangements should be made to keep them confidential, but in my opinion the advice of the Milne Committee went too far in that direction. So did the Amendment first put down by my hon. Friend. The Amendment which he has now moved secures that so far as the information contains or affords information as to water resources and supplies, that information shall be available. The whole purpose of the Bill in this respect is on the footing that water is a national asset, and what is discovered underground should be available to those concerned. I am happy to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 47, at end, insert:

"(6) The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-three of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, shall apply to any copies of, or extracts from journals and to any specimens or material sent to or taken or inspected by the said Committee or any officer appointed by them except so far as such journals, specimens and material contain or furnish knowledge and information as to water resources and supplies."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I cannot accept this Amendment. As I understood the position, my hon. Friend was moving his first and longer Amendment as a modification of this earlier Amendment which he had put down, and which in my view would restrict the dissemination of information as to water much too strictly. It would, in fact, prevent the Geological Survey from telling one of my officers what was within their knowledge.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—( Supply of water in bulk by agreement or compulsorily. )

11.15 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 11, line 26, at end, add:

"but any agreement or order to which this proviso applies shall cease to have effect at the expiration of such period not exceeding two years as the Minister may direct."

Some anxiety has been expressed, particularly on behalf of the catchment boards, as to the possible indefinite extension of an Order made by the Minister of Health in the case of exceptional shortage of rain covering the supply of water in bulk in a manner which is intended only to meet the emergency. I had to resist an Amendment, designed to restrict such an Order to a proper length of time, on the ground of its being too indefinite; but this Amendment is, I hope, satisfactory to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Control of abstraction and prevention of waste in certain areas.)

I beg to move, in page 14, line 15, leave out "paragraph 17," and insert "paragraphs 17 and 18."

The effect of this Amendment is that, in the case of Orders defining areas within which the extraction of underground water is permissible only with a licence, the costs incurred by the Minister in connec- tion with any inquiry into the matter fall to be borne by the Minister, and not by the undertaker or undertakers. The question of defining such an area is of concern not only to undertakers, as many others are interested. The area would probably not coincide with the limits of supply of any undertaker or undertakers. It seems proper that in a matter of such wide public interest any costs incurred by the Minister should be borne by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 32, leave out "his domestic purposes," and insert "the domestic purposes of his household."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

CLAUSE 16.—(Power to prohibit or restrict temporarily the use of hosepipes.)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 33, leave out:

"except for the purpose of extinguishing fires,"

and insert:

"for the purpose of watering private gardens or washing private motor cars."

Under this Clause, undertakers at present are entitled to prohibit or restrict the use of water through hosepipes except for the purpose of extinguishing fires. The purpose of the Clause—not at present, I think, satisfactorily accomplished—was to enable the undertakers to prohibit during time of shortage the use of hosepipes for watering private gardens or for washing private motor cars. But there are other matters for which water needs to be used through hosepipes, whatever the shortage. There are statutory obligations, for example, under the Diseases of Animals Act, which would conflict with the Clause as drawn. The Amendment does not alter the original purpose of the Clause, but effects what we always intended.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make this matter clear? It is not merely this House which has to understand the implication of Clauses, but a great many people outside. Because the House is a small one, the right hon. and learned Gentleman deals with the matter in a very cursory way. The original words were to the effect that there should be power to stop the use of hosepipes except for extinguishing fires. Now, I understand, the restriction is to be on the use of hosepipes for the watering of gardens and washing of cars. I am all for brevity, but I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make clear the implications of the Amendment.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I have not taken trouble over these Amendments he is under a misapprehension. If I were to explain all the implications of every Amendment, I doubt whether we should finish our business to-day. The Clause gives power to restrict the use of hosepipes at all times of exceptional shortage except for extinguishing fires. Now we propose to say not that undertakers can restrict the use of hosepipes except for the purpose of extinguishing fires, but that they can restrict the use of hosepipes for the purpose of watering gardens or washing private motor cars.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 35, at end, insert:

"In this subsection the expression 'private motor car' means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, other than a public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or a goods vehicle within the meaning of Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and includes any vehicle drawn by a private motor car."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

I beg to move, in page 17, line 42, after "liable," insert, "on summary conviction."

The words "on summary conviction" are necessary in the Bill. This provision has been moved into the Bill from the Schedule, which contained words that would have served the purpose, and now it is necessary to add, here and in one or two other places, the words "on summary conviction."

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 2, at end, insert:

"The procedure for obtaining the settlement of a dispute under this subsection by a court of summary jurisdiction shall be by way of complaint for an order, and the Summary Jurisdiction Acts shall apply to the proceedings."

This provision, similarly, is necessary by reason of moving this provision from the Third Schedule into the Bill. There were words in Section 88 of the Third Schedule which made this point, but it is now necessary to introduce it here.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 17.—(Byelaws for preventing waste, misuse or contamination of water.)

I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, leave out "do not cause," and insert:

"are not of such a nature or so arranged or connected as to cause or permit, or be likely to cause or permit."

This Amendment, which is connected with two later Amendments on the Third Schedule, deals with a question which was held over, in connection with fittings of railway companies. The effect of this Amendment is to add, to the fittings to which bylaws apply on premises which belong to a railway company, those that are of a kind likely to cause, or are so arranged or connected as to be likely to cause or permit waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of water. The effect will be to give a wider right of examination of railway fittings, and, the matter having been discussed with my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport and the railway companies, I am satisfied that this is a substantial improvement, and, indeed, a satisfactory solution of this question.

I am advised that this Amendment adequately meets the point which the Minister promised to consider.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Byelaws for preventing pollution of water of undertakers.)

I beg to move, in page 19, line 41, at end, insert:

"(4) Where any person has failed to comply with a requirement made on him under subsection (2) of this section and either— so doing from the person in default summarily as a civil debt, except expenses incurred in respect of works the construction of which could not, apart from this section, lawfully have been required, otherwise than upon payment of compensation, by the local authority of the district or county."

I am moving here to add a new Subsection to Clause 18, which deals with byelaws for the prevention of pollution of water of undertakers. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) made a suggestion during the Committee stage, and, indeed, put down an Amendment, with the object of securing that undertakers should have a further right to do the work themselves, where work was necessary to prevent pollution. A difficulty arose in connection with the fact that certain works could only be done on payment of compensation, but, the Amendment having been withdrawn by the hon. and learned Member, I hope he will feel, as I do, that the difficulty is avoided by the present Amendment.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for meeting the point that I raised in Committee. I think this Amendment perfectly disposes of it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(General provisions as to by-laws.)

I beg to move, in page 21, line 4, at end, add:

"and—

(ii) exercising any right conferred on the undertakers by subsection (4) of that section to execute and maintain works."

This Amendment is necessitated by the Sub-section that has just been added to Clause 8, which gives statutory undertakers the right, in certain circumstances, to carry out certain protective works to avoid pollution. It follows that they must have the right of entry for that purpose, and that is what is provided by this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—( Penalty for polluting water used for human consumption. )

11.30 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 22, line 23, at end, add:

"(2) Any officer of a local authority or statutory water undertaker within whose district or limits of supply, as the case may be, any such spring, well or adit is situated autho- rised by the authority or undertakers for the purpose, shall, on producing if so required some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a right at all reasonable hours to enter any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is or has been any contravention of this section in relation to that spring, well or adit, and the section of this Act relating to entry of premises shall apply to any such right of entry."

This Amendment arises in respect of works which have been forcibly urged by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) in connection with the risk of pollution of water supply by foul wells or other things of that kind. Clause 21 is an important addition to and strengthening of our law, but this Amendment goes still further in a useful direction, as I think my hon. Friends agree, in that it gives local authorities and statutory water undertakers a right of entry to inspect any premises, to see whether there is a risk of pollution in the case of any spring, well, or adit. The right of entry can be exercised, of course, only in accordance with the terms of the Bill—Clause 48—but I think it will be of value, for example, to the Metropolitan Water Board, who are concerned with this matter, particularly in the chalk strata in Kent, and who will be able to inspect derelict wells, sumps and things of that kind in the vicinity of their wells, and will be able to see that rubbish is not thrown into the wells.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Acquisition of land and execution of works for protection of water.)

I beg to move, in page 22, line 35, after "intercepting," insert "treating."

This Amendment proposes to introduce the word "treating" into Clause 22, but not with a special meaning. It is done in fulfilment of a promise made when an Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). The Clause, as it was drawn without this word, gave under takers power to construct sewers for carying off foul water, but did not enable them to treat the foul water while still on the land. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that such a course might be desirable. The simple addition of this one word meets the very proper point raised by my hon. and learned Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Power of statutory water undertakers to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily.)

I beg to move, in page 25, line 15, to leave out from the beginning to "of" in line 16, and insert:

"A compulsory purchase order made under this section may authorise the purchase of any land belonging to the National Trust not withstanding that such land is held by the Trust inalienably, but where any such order authorises the acquisition of land so held inalienably or."

This Amendment is linked with seven other Government Amendments to Clause 24. They really fall into two groups. I think there is no doubt that, as now carefully framed, they meet the serious and important points raised on behalf of the National Trust. The position is that the National Trust have power, under their Acts of 1907 and 1939, to declare certain land held by them to be inalienable—

May I correct my right hon. and learned Friend? The 1907 Act declared, in a Schedule that certain lands were inalienable.

My hon. Friend is entirely accurate, but it will not affect the substance of what I am saying.

indicated assent.

No one has ever been sure whether the declaration of the National Trust that land is inalienable saves it automatically from compulsory acquisition in all circumstances. This is not the place to try to define and settle the point finally, but the position which is achieved by this Amendment and those linked with it, is that no such land can be acquired, except with Parliamentary assent. There is one exception only, and that is where the Minister of Town and Country Planning—if I may refer to the effect of the whole series of Amendments—certifies that, with regard to a particular piece of land which is essential for some water purpose, a piece of land of equivalent value and equal advantage to those interested, which would be the public as a whole, is available and can be given in exchange. This, of course, could not possibly occur with regard to the major properties—a beautiful house or something of that kind, belonging to the National Trust—but there may well be cases where there is a field on the edge of the property, or some part of the land, which, in itself, has no unique quality and in regard to which the National Trust and the interests of the public would be properly safeguarded by the provision of the certificate of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

I do not know whether it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, to call my Amendment—in page 25, line 23, at beginning, insert:

"Except in the case of land held inalienably by the National Trust."

I suggest that it might be convenient if I speak on the Minister's Amendments and my own at the same time, if you have no objection, as the Minister has in fact referred to the proposal in my Amendment.

I was going to call the hon. Member's Amendment but, if it is more convenient, the Amendments can be discussed together.

I think perhaps it is more convenient. The Minister is giving effect to promises which he made on the Committee stage. The Amendment which stands in my name was on the Order Paper during the Committee stage but through some mischance or mistake it was not called, and, therefore, the point raised in the Amendment was not discussed. The Minister has indicated that he does not agree with my Amendment because he thinks that the Minister of Town and Country Planning ought to have power to offer land in exchange for National Trust land, where it is proposed to acquire National Trust land for the purposes of this Bill. My submission is, that the Minister of Town and Country Planning ought not to have the power to take National Trust land in exchange. In every case the matter ought to be referred to this House. As hon. Members know, the National Trust has acquired a large proportion of the most beautiful and historic land in this country. If I may give one single example, I will take Runnymede. Are we to give the Minister of Town and Country Planning power to take away Runnymede for the purposes of this Act, without reference to this House, merely on his certificate that other land is an adequate exchange? I cannot conceive that any land could be an adequate exchange for Runnymede, and I suggest that the Government ought to come to this House in such a case. That would be achieved if my Amendment were accepted, taking away that power from the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the case of National Trust land. I give another example. The National Trust is in possession of one or two of the few remaining Roman villas in this country, which it is most desirable to preserve. I do not think that the Government ought to seek power to take away such things without coming to this House.

May I express my sympathy with the view which has just been put to the House? There are lands which cannot very well be replaced because of their great historic association and their special beauty, and it would be a great pity if a Minister, without the knowledge of this House, were able to deprive the public or the National Trust of such lands and merely fob off the public, if you like, with compensatory or alternative land. It seems to me that because of the peculiar position in which the National Trust stands, some consideration should be given to the plea which has just been made that the House of Commons should have some knowledge of and be consulted on such proposals.

With the leave of the House, I would like to say that I can well understand that my hon. Friend's plea should have met with sympathy at once from the House, but I should tell the House that this substantial group of Amendments have been most carefully considered with the National Trust themselves, and no one could be more zealous for the maintenance of land which has been declared to be inalienable than the National Trust themselves. They have agreed that these provisions are satisfactory to them.

No.

We all know that there are properties of varying descriptions, but of course it would be impossible for the Minister of Town and Country Planning to say that some piece of land was as advantageous to the persons interested and to the public as a unique Roman villa. To suggest that somebody would propose to put a pumping station in the middle of a Roman villa site, and hand over a nearby field, and that the Minister of Town and Country Planning could possibly certify that as being of equivalent value to the public, is somewhat absurd. On the other hand, one knows that there are areas in some places—whether they have been declared inalienable in every case I do not know—where it was desirable, for public reasons, that there should be some quite small station of some kind for water purposes and where it really would not matter a bit whether it was one field or another. Is there any reason—with all our enthusiasm for the National Trust—that such an area as that should be of a higher status than the commons and open spaces dealt with in the Clause. Surely, the essence of the matter is that commons, open spaces, and such lands as this should all be in the same position. We must take a little care not to put ourselves into the position, that, for something which would undoubtedly be of quite a small character, these matters should have to come before this House in every case. If there were any doubt in the mind of any Minister with regard to the public view on the use of this piece of land, he would be in a superior position and would say, "I can not certify this as equally advantageous. The matter must remain to be dealt with under Sub-section (7)." As I am in structed—though I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) challenging it—the National Trust have agreed that this group of Amendments are satisfactory to them, but I submit, apart from that altogether, that they might be satisfactory to the House.

May I, with the leave of the House, say, as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Trust, that there has been a complete misunderstanding over this matter? I have been in touch with them throughout. They promoted this Amendment on the Committee stage. As I have said, it was not called by some mischance, and they have instructed me this morning to say that they very much desire that my Amendment should be embodied in the Bill and have never agreed to anything else.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, fine 17, leave out from "allotment," to the second "the," in line 20.

In line 23, at beginning insert "So much of," and after "Sub-section," insert:

"as provides that any such order as aforesaid shall be provisional only and not have effect until it is confirmed by Parliament."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

rose —

It is not now my intention to call the hon. Member's Amendment, as I stated when I suggested it might be convenient to discuss the Amendments together.

Before Mr. Speaker puts the next Amendment, may I ask whether the Minister will undertake before the Bill reaches another place to go into this question again?

In view of what I gather is some conflict of view regarding the National Trust, I shall certainly look into the matter, and if I find there is any doubt it can be put right.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 28, after "of," insert:

"land held inalienably by the National Trust or."

In line 41, leave out "common, open space or allotment," and insert "land acquired."

In line 44, leave out "common, open space or allotment," and insert "land acquired."

In line 45, leave out "part of the common, open space or allotment," and insert "land."

In page 26, line 3, after "Section," insert:

"the expression 'National Trust' means the National Trust for places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty incorporated by the National Trust Act, 1907, the expression 'held inalienably,' in relation to land belonging to that Trust, means land which is inalienable under section twenty-one of the said Act or section eight of the National Trust Act, 1939."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

CLAUSE 26.—( Power of statutory water undertakers to acquire water rights. )

11.45 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 27, line 36, after "drainage," insert:

"or on any canal or inland navigation."

This Amendment, which deals with the power of statutory water undertakers to acquire water rights, has been put down to meet a point raised on behalf of navigation authorities. I undertook that the matter would be looked into. The Minister is directed under the Clause as it stands—I am referring to line 29 on page 27—to consider all the circumstances of the case, but certain particular matters are indicated, to which presumably special attention is to be paid, and I think it is satisfactory to provide that, in addition to those already set out, the Minister should consider the effect on any canal or inland navigation. I hope that will meet the anxieties of those who raised the point in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 28, line 1, after "taken," insert:

"or which is fed by a stream from which water is to be taken to such extent as, in the opinion of the Minister, to affect the river, canal or other inland navigation."

This Amendment arises from the fact that it was felt that there was some doubt whether the acquisition of water from a stream, not iself an navigation but the feeder of a navigation, was sufficiently safeguarded. It would be wrong, I think, to give the navigation authority a locus standi in the case of every little brook that flows into the river in which the navigation authority is interested, but this would provide that any navigation authority for any river which is fed by a stream from which water is to be taken to such an extent as, in the opinion of the Minister, would affect the river, canal or inland navigation shall have a locus standi. If there were any question of doubt, of course, the Minister would be able to seek the advice of the Minister of War Transport on the question of whether the extraction of water from a feeder would be such as to affect the canal. Here, too, I think the anxieties of those interested in these authorities have been met.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—( Temporary discharge of water into watercourses. )

Amendment made: In page 35, line 8, leave out "in writing."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

CLAUSE 35.—( Power to supply water fittings. )

Amendment made: In page 38, line 10, after "liable," insert "on summary conviction."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

CLAUSE 36.—( Duty of statutory water undertakers to accept guarantees from local authorities. )

I beg to move, in page 38, line 29, leave out "paid," and insert "payable."

This Amendment, and the two following Amendments, if they may be taken together, concern the definition of the duty of statutory water undertakers to accept guarantees from local authorities. The substance of the Amendments arises on the consideration that the guarantee condition in this Clause should be in line with those required by the new Clause first moved this morning, a guarantee given where the mains are to be laid in advance of the erection of a building. I think that the Amendments are clear in their terms. The Amendment which is now before the House substitutes the word "payable" for "paid." That, I think, is sensible, considering the length of time that the guarantee should run. The position is different with regard to the length of period of guarantee from what it is in connection with the amount to be received by the undertakers in any particular year. There, what is actually paid should be made up to a proper figure and that is provided by another Amendment. The first point dealt with by this series of Amendments is that it should not be merely the amount received in respect of water rates which are taken into account in considering how far the deposit or guarantee is to be acquired; it should be the amount received, whether in respect of water rates or in respect of water taken by meter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 38, line 33, leave out from "amount," to the first "in," in line 34, and insert:

"received by the undertakers in respect of water supplied, whether for domestic or non-domestic purposes, in that year."

In line 34, after "area," insert:

"or until the expiration of a period of twelve years, whichever first occurs."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

CLAUSE 43.—( Compensation to officers of local authorities and joint boards. )

I beg to move, in page 45, line 6, leave out "a local authority or joint water board," and insert "any statutory water undertakers."

This Amendment, and the two that follow are linked together. The Bill, as originally drawn, provided only for compensation to officers of local authorities affected by an Order made under this Bill, for example, by way of amalgamation. I found it easy in Committee to accept that there was an obvious omission, in that quite clearly it should not only be the officers or servants of the local authorities but also the officers or servants of joint water boards. However, the question has stood over for consideration whether the officers of other water undertakers should be entitled to the same compensation rights. On consideration I have come to the view, which I hope will commend itself to the House, that it would be right that there should be compensation for officers and servants of statutory water undertakings, but that there would be difficulty in providing for compensation for private undertakers. So the Clause has now had a second addition to its scope, not merely by the addition of joint water boards but by the addition of statutory water undertakers.

On behalf of the employees who are being safeguarded by these Amendments, I wish to thank the Minister and those who acquiesced in the provisions now made for compensating those who may be dismissed or have their positions worsened as a consequence of anything carried out under this Bill. I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that it will be greatly appreciated by those concerned.

As one of those who raised this matter during the Committee stage, I desire to say how grateful I am to my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he has met us on this matter. It was the wish of the statutory water undertakers that their employees should be placed in the same position as those of local authorities and joint water boards, and I feel sure that they would also wish to thank my right hon. and learned Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 45, line 12, leave out "local authority," and insert "statutory water undertakers."

In line 24, leave out, "a local authority or joint water board," and insert, "any statutory water undertakers."

II line 25, at end, insert:

"and

( c ) references to a local authority or to the local authority were construed as references to statutory water undertakers or to the statutory water undertakers."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

CLAUSE 47.—( Offences by corporations. )

I beg to move, in page 46, line 22, leave out Clause 47.

Those who were engaged in the Committee stage will remember that there was a good deal of discussion on the Clause as drawn, which went further with regard to members and officers of local authorities than any previous proposal in that regard, particularly in respect of offences arising as a result of neglect. There was a great weight of criticism, particularly so far as local authority members were concerned and, considering the matter since, I came to the conclusion that those criticisms were well justified with regard to members of local authorities. I think that on balance the opinion in the Committee was that the same was true with regard to officers of local authorities. In those circumstances, one is forced to consider whether it is right in a field such as this, where water supply is being provided by local authorities and by statutory undertakers, to have a wholly different code with regard to individual responsibility in relation to the two types of undertaking. On balance, I came to the conclusion, with which I hope the House will agree, that there is no reason to import into this Bill these provisions, which have considerable risks in their application. After all, the prosecution of the undertaking itself is a serious sanction, and I hope the House will agree that the omission of the Clause is the wisest course.

My right hon. and learned Friend will, of course, realise the difficulties in connection with pollution. There have been cases where water has been discharged into rivers and streams by a local authority on the plea that they are overloaded, and that that is the only way in which they can get rid of it. At aerodromes, too, which are at present in Government hands, but which are quite likely to go back again to local authorities, sewage has been discharged into small streams. I want to know what safeguards water undertakings or catch- ment authorities have to deal with such matters if this Clause is omitted?

As one who argued rather strongly against this Clause in Committee, I would like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the action he has taken, which will be received with great satisfaction by a large number of local authorities.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken the right course in this matter. As he said, this Clause went very much further in the establishment of criminal liability against local authorities and their officers than anything previous. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Sir A. Heneage) need feel any great apprehension that this will result in any undue extension of the pollution of streams, for which catchment authorities are responsible. There are civil remedies and certain criminal remedies, with which I know he is familiar. I think the Minister has interpreted the feeling of the Committee correctly, and I desire to associate myself with the thanks which have been expressed to him.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—( Interpretation. )

12 noon.

I beg to move, in page 53, line 15, after "1936," insert:

"but not actually supplying water under that Act."

This Amendment is for the sake of clarification. During the discussion on the Bill I have noticed that it has not always been realised that the words in this Clause:

"… any local authority authorised to supply water by the Public Health Act. …"

include authorities which are not, in fact, supplying water, although they have authority to do so. I think it is desirable to make that fact clear, and that is the reason for this Amendment, which is really a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 61.—( Saving for protective provisions in other Acts. )

In calling the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) I would like to point out that it covers the three Amendments which follow.

I beg to move, in page 54, line 1, at beginning, insert "(1)."

The purpose of this Amendment, and of those which follow—in line 4, leave out ( a ) and in line 8, leave out ( b ) and insert: Clause 32 which would have that effect, but there is a number of other Clauses, particularly Clause 23, where it appears to me as though it would be possible for the Minister to make an order which would, in effect, deprive the public of those rights. Therefore, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be willing to allow the Bill to be restored to its original wording in order that these important rights may be safeguarded. I do not want to be unreasonable or obstructive. I recognise that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the development of the water resources of the country to be carried out more easily, cheaply and expeditiously. I do not want in any way to insist upon procedure that would be unduly cumbrous and would interfere with the purpose of the Bill; but in the case of all the Amendments concerning amenities which were moved in Committee upstairs, my right hon. and learned Friend showed himself as wholly sympathetic and responsive to the arguments that we put forward, and I hope he will show himself just as friendly and responsive to this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It seems to me that the rights we are trying to preserve are very essential. I can say from my own experience of water engineering that the enjoyment of exercise and fresh air over catchment areas can be allowed without in any way interfering with the purity of the supply. I think that a great many water undertakers have actually gone to greater extremes than were necessary in curtailing rights of access to their catchment areas. This Amendment deals with limited and specific cases, but I would like to support what the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has said.

I should be the last to complain of the persuasive character of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) and other hon. Members who have spoken on the question of amenities in connection with this Bill. I am so fond of the Lake District and know so well Haweswater and those areas that I am full of sympathy. I hope my hon. Friend will agree, as I think a number of hon. Members agreed in Committee, that this particular Amendment would be somewhat disastrous to the Bill as a whole. The scheme of the Bill is that various forms of order can be made under various Clauses, and in relation to each type of order there is defined a procedure with proper safeguards. In appropriate cases, of which the most conspicuous that one thinks of is an order for abstraction of water, there is recourse to Parliament. There are, of course, such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Friends of the Lake District, and so on who take a particular interest in these matters, and they are apprehensive that the Minister, when making an Order under Clause 23—I think that is the conspicuous case in the mind of my hon. Friend—for the construction, alteration or continuance of water works, might repeal such a "Birmingham Clause" as one finds in connection with Haweswater, far though it is from Birmingham. I refer to Section 43 of the Manchester Corporation Act, 1919, which deals with access to the fell and mountain country around Hawes water. This is not the position, I can assure the House.

The Bill confers power to modify local Acts when orders, either with regard to amalgamation or with regard to the construction of works, arise, but there is no doubt whatever that those powers of modification of local Acts, or such pro visions as my hon. Friend has referred to, are necessarily limited in their scope by the specific purpose of the particular order. No possibility could arise of a wide change or a wide modification of the "Birmingham Clauses." Indeed, I cannot think where any modification of the "Birmingham Clauses" could arise in any way except in an order authorising works under Clause 23; but I hope the House will agree that there might be a proper case for some small work, the erection of a new valve house or some thing to be done for a high level cottage in the protected area, where it would be necessary and right, for purposes entirely incidental to that particular work, to make a minor modification.

Even so, my hon. Friend and those who have studied the Bill will recall the assurances that I gave more than once that the amenity bodies, whether the national organisations which we know well or some body that sprang up spontaneously in indignation at the proposal of a water undertaker, would be considered as persons affected by the proposal and would be able to make their case at a local inquiry. With regard to the major cases of abstraction of water, they would be in a position to insist that the matter come to the House. I can give an absolutely categorical assurance that there is no question whatever of any arbitrary or wholesale wiping out of these very valuable protective provisions, but it would be serious if such, a minor work as I have suggested could not in any case be allowed or ordered except with the consent of persons interested. It might be a matter of public interest in which a private veto should not be maintained. One cannot properly safeguard forever as sacrosanct every square yard of land protected by "Birmingham Clauses," but I can assure my hon. Friend that the procedure which is laid down, together with the clear fact that the alterations could only be incidental to the specific work that was being authorised, do give him and those for whom he speaks the protection for which they rightly ask.

12.15 p.m.

In view of the explanation of my right hon. and learned Friend and his very satisfactory assurances as to the spirit in which this Measure is going to be administered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On a point of Order. Are you, Mr. Speaker, calling the Amendment standing in my name—in page 54., line 2, leave out "section thirty-two," and insert

"sections nine, twenty-three or thirty-two or under any other section."

I called the first Amendment and all the others were to come within the discussion of it.

With great respect—

In any case I did not select the hon. Member's Amendment. I do not think it is well drafted. I went into the question this morning.

I beg to move, in page 54, line 14, leave out from "the," to end of line 15, and insert:

"quantity of compensation water to be discharged into any watercourse or the periods during which or the manner in which such compensation water is to be discharged."

The Clause as it stands, includes an Amendment which was moved in Com- mittee by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Dr. Peters). It was felt that the Minister, when reviewing existing local Acts, should not have the power to alter existing compensation water awards, but what was intended and what I think was in the minds of the Committee, as it was in my own mind, was that what should be prevented was the alteration of the quantity of compensation water or the manner and method of discharge. Unfortunately, the Amendment which I accepted in Committee goes too far, goes beyond what I think we intended, because the Bill as it is, without this Amendment which I am now moving, would prevent the alteration of any provision with respect to the discharge of compensation water into any water course. As the Third Schedule is drawn there are provisions, which have been accepted in Committee, for a standardisation of the penalties for non-compliance with water compensation awards. It was not, I am sure, in the mind of the hon. Member for Huntingdon that that advantage should be lost in this consolidating Measure. I am satisfied that what was in his mind and in the minds of the Committee will be met by the Amendment which I am moving.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—( Procedure for making Orders, approving Agreements and making and confirming Bye-laws. )

I beg to move, in page 56, line 10, at end, insert: ments would have to be inserted in local newspapers all over five counties about matters which possibly did not affect any of those counties. Therefore, the Minister met the point quite reasonably. Now we come to the logic of that decision. As the Bill now stands it is no longer necessary for a body like the Metropolitan Water Board, which covers an area of 500 square miles and the areas of 100 local authorities, to advertise in all the local newspapers, but it is still necessary for them to inform every local authority in the area, whether the proposed Order affects it or not. For example, if the Metropolitan Water Board proposed to undertake some quite small work in the county of Berks it would be necessary for them to give notice to every local authority in London, Middlesex, Kent, Essex and Surrey, and the Board naturally can not understand why notices should have to be sent to 100 local authorities about some matter which concerns only two of them, and possibly only one.

The Minister may say, and did, in effect, say, in Committee, that it would be as well not to take any chances of failing to inform every local authority because serious consequences might arise through such an omission, but I would draw his attention to the fact that if 100 local authorities have to be informed it will mean that 100 town clerks or council clerks will have to open some document which in many cases does not apply to 98 of them. After having opened the document they will then pass it on to their staff, who will have to engage in a search to try to find out why it has been sent to them and whether there is any possibility of their area being affected. It would be passed on, for instance, to the surveyor's and the engineer's departments in an effort to find out why they have been notified, because they would come to the conclusion that an important body like the Metropolitan Water Board would not take the trouble to send a local authority a notice about something which did not affect them in any shape or form. That is the point I wish the Minister to consider.

In my Amendment I have suggested some words which I feel would be quite satisfactory. They would leave the Minister with the power to determine whether, in order that there should be no mistake, all the local authorities affected should get notice. I ask him seriously to look into this question. Already there is criticism of the Civil Service in the Press and amongst the public for doing too much by way of regulations which ordinary people and, indeed, the Metropolitan Water Board, which is composed of all political parties, regard as perfectly un necessary and as involving a great waste of time on the part of highly paid people.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I feel that it is unnecessary to add any other reasons to those which have already been put forward in support of this Amendment. Anyone who has had experience of the local administration in London and the home counties will know that the service of notices upon 100 local authorities concerning a matter which affects possibly only one of them will cause endless work. Every town clerk will feel it to be his duty to get reports from his engineer, surveyor and other officials, and there will be much unnecessary work and loss of time.

I do not want to flog a suggestion which appears to me so obviously sound that I cannot think that the Minister will resist it. What the Bill proposes appears to be a sheer waste of time, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board particularly. The constitution of that body is almost unique in that it has on it representatives of all the local authorities within its area, and as a member of the Board I can say that its officials keep the members very fully informed of everything that is taking place. If it should appear to any member of the Board representing a local authority in, say, Essex that something that has been done or that may be done in Hertfordshire or Surrey could in the remotest degree affect his area, it would obviously be his duty to draw the attention of his local authority to it. Why on earth should we go to the trouble and waste of time of notifying literally hundreds of local officials of authorities which cannot have the remotest concern in the work that is to be done? I am sure that the Minister does not want to waste time and labour, especially at a time when there is a short age of man-power, a shortage which will continue for a very considerable time. If there is any fear that the representative of a local authority on the Board might overlook something and not bring it to their notice, surely that point is met by the Amendment which makes the Minister himself the authority for deciding whether it is necessary to send out notices. I am willing to trust the Minister and to trust his Department to see that when anything is likely to happen which might cause trouble to a neighbouring authority the attention of that authority is drawn to it. The Minister might at any rate accept the spirit of the Amendment, even if not the actual words, and at a later stage put in words which would prevent any unnecessary waste of time and labour.

I do not think the six hon. Members who have put their names to this Amendment would say that I had been backward in the course of the discussions upon this Bill, and it would certainly be a pity that we should have any serious difference of opinion on what seems to be a minor point. I can assure my hon. Friends that I am just as anxious as they are that there should be business like procedure in all these matters, but there are serious considerations to oppose to those which they have put for ward. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment recalled that in another part of this Schedule we were able very easily to arrive at an accommodation. In the matter of advertising in the newspapers, which would involve substantial expenditure, we were able to find a form of words that was thoroughly satisfactory to the very important authority for whom he speaks. But let us see, on this present question, where the balance of businesslike pro cedure really lies. I wonder how many tens of thousands or hundreds of thou sands of notices are sent out by the Metro politan Water Board in the course of a year. What is provided for by the Clause as it stands is that when the Board are applying for an Order under this Bill they should send a notice to each of—I think there are actually 101—the local authorities within their limits of supply. What solid difficulty is there in making arrangements to have a circulation list of 101 clerks to local authorities to whom a copy of a notice is to be sent when the Board are making an application under any of these Sections—Nos. 9, 10, 22, 26 and 32?

12.30 p.m.

It is suggested that that is terribly burdensome and that local authorities are put to very great trouble in considering whether they are affected by the proposed order. The alternative suggested is that whenever the Metropolitan Water Board wants an order of that kind, instead of simply sending a copy of their application on their circulation list to 101 local authorities they have to send to the Ministry of Health, whose officials have to consider whether the order will effect two, five, 12 or 30 authorities, all with the object of saving the putting in the post of 101 identical documents. It may well be, too, that local authorities are not too anxious to-day to have the question whether the proposed Ministerial order will affect them or not decided by the Minister. They would much rather have the opportunity of deciding that for themselves. I would suggest to those who have promoted the Amendment that they should not take the point so seriously. There is a great deal of solid ground for my opposition to this proposal. It is a simple matter for the Metropolitan Water Board to send a copy of these applications or formal notices to the local authorities within its area which, after all, is only a circle of about 15 miles radius. It is infinitely more practical and business-like than the Metropolitan Water Board having to make an application on each occasion to the Minister of Health to say, "Please settle for us whether we are to send out 5, 20, 30, 40 or the whole 101."

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is completely missing the whole point. There is no objection on the part of the Metropolitan Water Board to sending out letters on the ground of the cost involved. That is not the end of it. It is only the beginning. There is no great difference between the postage of one letter and 100 with an organisation like that. Is it assumed that, when the letters have been put in the post, nothing else happens? A hundred people have to open the letters and consider them. Many more than a hundred officials have to spend their time considering questions which cannot possibly affect them.

The case for the Amendment has come so far entirely from the Metropolitan Water Board. No one on behalf of the local authorities has said, "It is too much trouble for us to open the envelopes. We do not want to consider whether this will affect us. We want the Minister to decide it." It has simply been put, until to-day, on the ground that it is a waste of time for the Metropolitan Water Board to send out 100 pieces of paper, which may or may not interest people. It is most unnecessary to cumber the Ministry of Health, whenever the Metropolitan Water Board want one of these orders, and make them decide, and it is an important decision to make because the order might be bad if the Minister came to a wrong conclusion about who was affected. It is far better for them to go to the 100 local authorities and for them to make up their own minds whether the order affects them.

I support the Minister. Catchment boards would like to have the decision as to whether an order affected them rather than leave it entirely to the Minister, though I am quite sure that Ministers do their best for them. As far as local authorities are concerned, though I am vice-president of two, I have not heard of any objections and I am sure that local authorities as a whole would rather decide for themselves and make their own mistakes than be able to blame it on to the Minister.

I have no desire further to contest the Minister's position nor to put the House to the inconvenience of a Division, but I ought in fairness to tell the right hon. Gentleman that his attitude is one to which Members of all political parties take exception and he must not be surprised if steps are taken in another place to discuss the point further. I should be obliged if he would see, before the Bill goes to another place, if there is any way in which the difficulty can be overcome.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—( Compulsory Purchase Orders. )

I beg to move, in page 62, to leave out lines 10 to 14, and to insert:

"( c ) part IV of the Third Schedule of this Act."

This is a correction of a drafting error.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 62, line 46, at end, insert:

"( b ) publish in the London Gazette a notice stating that such an order has been made and giving the name and date of issue of a local newspaper in which a notice given in pursuance of sub-paragraph ( a ) of this paragraph will be found; and"

This Amendment is moved for the benefit of numberless associations, companies, firms and individuals who have wide and varied interests all over the country, to whom it is an intolerable burden to have to search every local paper, circulating very often in very small numbers in very restricted areas. These firms and associations invariably read the London Gazette, to see if any interests, local or other, of which notice is given affect them. The Amendment follows the wording of Section 1 (3) of the 1939 and 1943 Acts and it is already in this Bill in the First Schedule. It will be a very great convenience indeed to the type of association to which I am referring.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. We are dealing here merely with Compulsory Purchase Orders. The Bill already requires the service of notice on an owner, lessee or occupier of the land to be acquired and the publication of the notice in one or more local newspapers. The Schedule, as drawn, is on the same basis as four Acts of Parliament, the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, the Local Government Act, 1933, the Housing Act, 1936, and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. It would be a very unfair burden to place on water undertakers and no one else that they should have to give notice in the London Gazette of every compulsory purchase of land, however small. I do not know of any ground for believing that the provisions as drawn in these other Acts have given rise to any difficulty and I cannot imagine any ground for placing water undertakings in a peculiarly troblesome position as com pared with those seeking Compulsory Purchase Orders for any other purpose. It is true that the First Schedule provides for notice in the London Gazette, but there is surely a difference between giving notice of an application for an Order for the amalgamation of undertakings, or new works, or abstraction of water, or a re vision of charges, or an alteration of areas. All these things are properly inserted in the London Gazette but that every purchase of land should have to be put in the London Gazette would be burdensome and it would be a curious anomaly if inserted in this Bill. After all, a great deal can be done in these days through Press cutting agencies, and if there is a desire to have information from local newspapers with regard to notices for the acquisition of land I feel sure that that could be arranged. I could not countenance a special provision, quite anomalous in relation to the rest of our statute law, in this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—( Provisions to be incorporated in Orders relating to water undertakings. )

I beg to move, in page 67, line 46, at the end, to insert:

"'building' includes a part of a building if that part is separately occupied."

This is consequential on a number of Amendments which were introduced in Committee, where in several places the word "house" was amended and the phrase as it now stands in the Bill became "house or other building." I indicated that it would be necessary to move this Amendment in order to bring the references to other buildings into line with the references to houses.

Amendment agreed to.

12.45 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 69, leave out lines 19 to 22.

This Amendment, which leaves out the definition of "outer wall," deals with a difficulty which was referred to upstairs. There is a serious difficulty if water undertakers are responsible for a stop cock inside a cellar which is privately occupied, and the best view is that "outer wall" should not be defined and, indeed, that there should be no definition of it here, but that the boundary of the street should be, in the case of a cellar under the street, where that cellar begins.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 69, line 43, leave out "Act, or part of an Act, or order," and insert "enactment."

Does a local enactment become a by-law?

"Enactment" as defined on page 68, means:

"any Act of Parliament, whether public, general, local or private, any statutory order or any provision in an Act of Parliament or statutory order."

It does not mean by-law.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

The next five Amendments on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) were received only last night. It is 15 days since the Standing Committee rose, and on Fridays we meet at 11 o'clock. Therefore, I have had only a very short time to consider the Amendments, and neither the Minister nor the draftsman has had any time to consider them. I must say that if hon. Members put down blocks of four or five Amendments in this way, I shall be obliged in future not to select them. If my selection on this occasion is faulty, the fault is not mine, but that of the hon. and learned Member who put them in so late. I am not calling the first of the Amendments.

Members who are interested in this Bill were, as far as I know, almost entirely of the opinion that there was no likelihood of the Report stage being taken until after Whitsun.

The Business for to-day was announced last Thursday, and, there fore, there has been the best part of a week in which Amendments might have been put in.

I beg to move, in page 74, line 35, leave out from "reservoir," to "and," in line 38, and insert:

This Amendment is of considerable importance both to the water undertakers and to the riparian users upon a stream. Under the Bill the obligation upon a water undertaker is to discharge compensation water during every day of 24 hours reckoning from midnight in a uniform and continuous flow. The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute an obligation upon the undertaker to discharge the compensation water at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Minister's order. The reason for that can be shortly stated. The riparian owners of the stream are not interested solely in the quantity of compensation water which is discharged; their interest extends also to the time at which the different quantities are discharged. It may be that in some places where there is an industrial user of the stream, the amount of compensation water which is sufficient for the riparian owners at weekends or during periods of public holidays or times of that sort, may be much less than the quantity of compensation water which is needed to meet their requirements during working hours or days.

Again, I am told in some cases that the quantity of compensation water which is required by day is much greater than the quantity which need be discharged by night. If the obligation upon the undertaker is to discharge in a uniform flow, it means that at certain times of the day and night and on certain days there may be discharged a much larger quantity of compensation water than is called for to meet the needs of the riparian owners. It has been the practice of Private Bill Committees for many years to take that matter into consideration and to deter mine not only the quantity of compensation water which is to be discharged into the stream, but to adjust the times and quantities according to the needs of the riparian owners. In that way it is possible to avoid the discharge of excessive quantities of compensation water, and it is also possible to ensure that the riparian owners are not affected by seasonal fluctuations in the quantity of water which normally flows into the stream.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is only right that I should mention, that this portion of the Schedule has stood in the form which my hon. and learned Friend is seeking to amend ever since the introduction of the Bill and throughout the weeks when the Bill was in Committee. I did not see these Amendments until this morning. They are in connection with a subject which my hon. and learned Friend him self has on several occasions described as most technical, namely, the subject of compensation water, and if I am unable to do justice to the point of the Amendment, I venture to think that I am entitled to crave the forgiveness of the House. As I follow the Amendment, my hon. and learned Friend proposes to leave out the words:

"during every day of twenty-four hours reckoned from midnight in uniform and continuous flow."

They are substantial and significant words. The Sub-section as it stands was drafted by the Milne Committee and Subsection (2) differs from the model Bill provision mainly in the requirement that the flow shall be uniform as well as continuous. The object of the Amendment may be to make it clear that the pro visions of Section 10 will not operate so far as to vary the manner in which compensation water is required to be discharged under existing Acts. If that is so, the answer is that when the code is applied, Section 10 of the Third Schedule could not by reason of the terms of Clause 61 of the Bill be applied in such a way as to vary the manner of discharge prescribed by an existing local Act. The object of the Amendment may be to avoid, so far as future compensation awards are concerned, any rules with regard to a uniform and continuous flow which would be regarded as normal and only to be modified in relation to the particular facts. It may be said that a uniform and continuous flow is impossible in some cases, and is undesirable in most cases, because the awards usually pro vide for more water coming down by day than by night; or there may be other variations, such as that water is only to come down on working days. The Section does not preclude a prescribed and uniform flow in each period if that is justified. It is a standard Clause which will have no effect on any particular undertaker until it is applied to the under taker. When the question of applying the Section comes up in connection with an order under Clause 26, he can make his case for any necessary modification, and he can insist on the decision being the decision of Parliament. This is obviously a most technical point, but, apart altogether from any question of whether I have been able to convince the House on a matter with which I have had no opportunity to familiarise myself, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

I would like to support the Amendment on slightly different grounds. If you are going to insist on a continuous and uniform flow, that can only be achieved by haying elaborate apparatus such as a floating weir or some thing of that kind, but that is not the usual way in which compensation water is supplied. One of the most normal ways is to give two-thirds to the undertaker and one-third to the riparian owners, and if the stream should vary very much, even within the 24 hours, that kind of arrangement, which is normal, would be precluded by the words in the Bill. I know that the Minister is in a difficulty about this because he has not had a long time to look at it, but I think there are good arguments in favour of the Amendment. I would not like to think that it was the intention of the Government in any future arrangements for compensation water that they should be on a basis of giving a uniform and continuous flow, because if you are going to get a uniform and continuous flow in one 24 hours, the only way to lay it down is to have it in the next 24 hours, and so on. That would be a retrograde step in compensation water practice.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This is a standard code which is subject to modifications and adaptations as may be specified at the time.

1.0 p.m.

Having been on the Milne Committee, I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment without giving it consideration and consulting with the catchment boards and the various authorities. I agree that at the moment it is too technical.

I am very interested to hear that the Milne Committee have seen this Section and agreed to the words as drafted in the Bill. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway moved this Amendment partially in the interests of mill owners. Mill owners have written and spoken to me on this point, and although they have read the Section, they are not sure what it means and they are afraid it may put them in difficulties and under obligations which they would be unable to fulfil. If I understand from the Minister that they need have no fear that they will be under any obligation which they cannot normally fulfil I assume the matter is all right. On the other hand, I believe there are many mill owners who are very nervous about the position.

It will perhaps shorten matters if I say that the matter will, of course, be looked into, but I cannot accept it to-day.

I understand my right hon. and learned Friend to say that this Section would not preclude him from inserting a special order dealing with compensation water on the lines on which it has been dealt with in Private Bills. In those circumstances I do not desire to press the matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 75, line 13, leave out from "pounds," to "and," in line 15, and insert: an offence is committed may not be excessive.

In my submission, the daily penalty for every day on which the offence is committed should not be included in the Bill, but there should be a penalty of £50 for the offence and a daily and continuing penalty for every day on which the offence is committed after the undertaker has been prosecuted and convicted. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to regard that as reasonable. Here again, I have to acknowledge that he has been placed in some difficulty in being asked to consider the matter at a late stage. If he feels that it would be better not to commit himself at the moment I hope he will be able to hold out some prospect that he will give it consideration before the Bill reaches another place.

I beg to second the Amendment.

This is another case in which I venture to think the shortness of time which has been allowed to the Government to consider an Amendment is most remarkable. The penalties in this Section were deliberately made heavy. They have stood in their present form ever since the Milne Committee drafted their Water Undertakings Bill years ago, and only last night an Amendment was proposed to alter them. I will certainly not indicate any likelihood of accepting an Amendment in this form. On the other hand it would be improper if I said, not having had an opportunity to consider the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, that I am completely adamant in the matter. I would say that I approach the matter with a very strong disposition to adhere to what has stood for so long without criticism, and I would call attention to the fact that this Amendment and those which follow not only propose to lighten the penalties but propose that the penalty should not date from the time of the offence but from the time of the conviction. That appears to me to be a serious matter. If there were an evil or reckless mind there might be a temptation to keep back compensation water in the know ledge that until there was a conviction there would be nothing to pay, and that would seem to me to be an appropriate case for a retrospective penalty. In any event, I understand my hon. and learned Friend, with his usual fairness, would not dream of pressing this Amendment to-day, and I hope he will withdraw it and will not move the two following Amendments.

I certainly have no wish to press these Amendments. I appreciate the desire for imposing a penalty before conviction, but the continuing penalty should be imposed after the conviction. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and I do not desire to move the two following Amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 83, leave out lines 13 to 35.

This Amendment is consequential. It arises from the insertion in the Bill of the new provision relating to the duty of undertakers to provide a domestic supply for new houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 83, line 37, leave out:

"either Sub-section (1), or Sub-section (2) of this Section,"

and insert:

"the last foregoing Sub-section."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

I beg to move, in page 95, leave out lines 18 to 23.

The Section in which this proviso which I propose to omit occurs, deals with the undertakers' power to test water fittings. As it stands, there is a proviso that where water is supplied by meter to a factory or to premises which belong to a railway company, the power of testing shall apply only in relation to a meter used by the undertakers for measuring the water supplied by them and to any water fittings between that meter and the main. There has been in this House and elsewhere a tendency which I welcome, not to take the view that water is something which anybody should be free to waste so long as he pays for it, but to treat water as a national asset which should be properly conserved and used. On that view I propose that this proviso should be omitted. The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) moved a similar Amendment in Committee, and the Committee, I think, without any doubt found the proposal acceptable so far as factories were concerned. At that time I had undertaken to discuss the position so far as railway companies were concerned with my Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport and the railway companies. It is not merely a question of quantity of water and waste; there is also the question of quality and purity. If the fittings are improper or their arrangement and adaptation are unsuitable there may well be two sources of supply in a factory or in premises belonging to a railway company—cross connections may be made and so forth—and there would be a risk of contamination. I understand that railway companies are not disposed to raise any objection to the omission of the proviso, and, taking them together, I think they are probably the largest individual water users in the country. They take the view that water undertakers should be allowed to test their water fittings. A curious point is this, that leaving out this proviso does not involve putting a fresh burden on the factories and the railways. The general law under the Public Health Act has been on the lines of the Section without the proviso, and it has been common in local Acts as well. It was an entirely new suggestion that there should be a proviso of this kind, and I think, on consideration, we are better off without it.

I very much regret that the Minister has moved this Amendment. The wording of this Section was very carefully considered by the Central Advisory Water Committee, and the objects for which the proviso was inserted were legitimate and right. Waste is dealt with by users who have meters. The waste in itself is effectively dealt with in Sections 64 and 65, but if this proviso is removed it means that water undertakers can send people roaming over any industrial establishment, even those which are supplied by meter, to see whether water is being wasted or not, although the industrial establishment has the strongest motive not to waste water because it is paying by meter. That state of affairs is very undesirable. No officer of a statutory water undertaking is sufficiently well equipped to understand all the modern developments of industrial processes, chemical and otherwise, and his opinion on many of those fittings would be quite valueless. I am very sorry that it is proposed to remove the proviso and I would ask the Minister to see whether it is not possible to reconsider the matter.

1.15 p.m.

I do not know whether I might at the same time deal with the Amendment in my name, in page 95, line 27, after "undertakers" insert "otherwise than by meter", which deals with the same subject, and with the Amendment of the Minister in page 97, leave out lines 31 to 35. The case against removing the proviso is even stronger in that instance. If we remove it, we shall be allowing an inspector to examine any sort of fitting and to inflict penalties on persons using any apparatus attached to a main which supplies water. That will really be an impossible position in the case of some industries. People will be able to come in who know nothing about the industry. They may be able to invade industrial privacy.

It is practically an invitation to agents of a foreign Power who want to investigate some process. [ Laughter. ] I can assure my hon. Friends that it is not an exaggeration. It has happened. That is how several industrial secrets have got out. We shall have people walking about examining the most delicate chemical apparatus, if there is water passing through it and if it is attached to a water main. It is a very serious matter and I ask the Minister to see whether he cannot leave the provisoes in. They were recommended by the C.A.W. Committee. If he cannot do so, may I ask whether he could not, between now and the Bill going to another place, adopt words to prevent the disclosure of industrial secrets or any tampering with delicate chemical, electrical or other apparatus by people who are unqualified in such matters.

This is the first time I have spoken upon this Report stage. I am very impressed by what has been said just now by my hon. Friend. I rise to put a question to the Minister. We all want to avoid waste, but who is to decide whether water is or is not being wasted, for example in chemical apparatus? Is it reasonable to suppose that an ordinary water inspector can do so, when he would not think of suggesting that he was either a scientist or a chemist or had any expert knowledge of the process that was being undertaken? All he would be able to say was that some water was running away, but he would be the one to decide whether waste was or was not occurring. He would have the right to initiate a summons and to cause a great deal of fuss and bother to the industrialist concerned.

My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I am anxious to avoid waste, but let us not get too technical in this matter. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would, between now and the Bill going to another place, try to find some means whereby we shall not put bureaucratic powers into the hands of an inspector to decide what is or is not waste, particularly as he could not possibly have any knowledge of the chemical processes concerned.

My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment introduced a dramatic element which the circumstances of the case do not really justify. I would like to assure him that there is no danger of inspectors of water undertakings acting as industrial spies. They are officials who are well known to the undertakers and in many cases have been in their employment for many years. I would also like to assure him that there is no danger of industrial secrets being disclosed as a result of inspectors of water undertakings examining taps and other fittings in a factory. I hope the Minister will stand firm about this matter. It has already been said that we are all united in our desire to prevent waste; but I cannot help feeling that behind the Amendment is the conception that because a consumer is paying for his water through a meter he is entitled to do what he likes with it. That is not a point of view which appeals to water undertakers. The mere fact that the water has been paid for does not entitle a consumer to waste it. The undertakers are primarily concerned to see that there should be no waste.

Who shall decide what is waste?

The best person to decide is the inspector of the water undertaking.

Nonsense.

If this scheme is to work we must assume that water undertakers and their officials are reasonable people, and that they will not go into chemical factories and interfere with im portent processes in the interests of water economy. If water is being properly used in the factory, the inspector will not interfere.

The hon. and learned Member is supporting our Amendment. Let me give him one instance. We have to pass cooling water through a certain apparatus because if the temperature rises beyond a certain point there is an explosion. That is a very common thing. First, the industrialist would have to explain the process to the inspector and then the inspector would have to say that they could go on wasting water. Why waste the inspector's time? Why not agree that it does not arise, and leave the matter there?

I said a moment ago that we must deal with this matter on the footing that water undertakers and their officials are reasonable people. I assure my hon. Friend that they are not likely to do anything that will cause an explosion.

Is not my hon. and learned Friend confusing reasonableness with knowledge and experience? They are quite different things. It does not necessarily follow that a man is unreasonable because he has no experience.

I am not suggesting that the water inspector is an expert chemist or an expert on industrial processes. I am saying that if he is a reasonable person and if reasonable use is being made of water, no doubt he will not interfere. Surely it is not reasonable to exclude an inspector altogether from these factories which may have hundreds of taps and different kinds of appliances. Surely it is reasonable in order to ensure that the water is being properly used, that the inspectors should go into the factories and make sure that the fittings used are properly adapted to their purpose?

I support the Minister's proposal to cut out these provisoes. An inspector will not concern himself with the delicate apparatus to which hon. Members have referred. He will go round and look at the w.c. cisterns, the drains and the stopcocks about the grounds. It is right that a water authority should have power to send its inspectors to industrial premises for those purposes. The effect of leaving the provisoes in would be that a water undertaking would have no right to make representations, even in a time of extreme drought when it was necessary to conserve water, to any factory which was supplied with mains water through a meter, even though cistern valves had stuck and the water was running to waste full bore. Water inspectors are responsible people and I cannot see any reason why they should charge an industrialist with wasting water so long as a normal amount of water was being properly used.

I rather regretted that some of the observations of my hon. and learned Friend were so facetious when he was referring to the leakage of industrial secrets. It is not necessary to suppose that a spy will come in as such; he obtains information from other sources. If a consumer is paying for water by meter, that should satisfy the supplier. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend is aware of the fact that there is not a perfect water meter in existence. If one wants to get water surreptitiously, one has only to let it pass through very slowly.

With regard to waste of water, this is not chiefly due to the man who wants a washer on his tap. The water undertakers themselves are often responsible. When a 24-inch or 48-inch main has broken joints, as much water can leak away in one hour as would last an industrial undertaking for a week. Some years ago, at the corner of Blackstock Road there were two 48-inch mains which had been leaking for goodness knows how long, and nothing had been done about it by the water undertakers. In fact, the leak would not have been discovered but for building operations taking place. Where an undertaking or a private individual receives water by meter and is charged for it, he should be free of inspection and not be suspected of deliberately wasting water.

Amendment agreed to.

1.30 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 97, leave out lines 31 to 35.

This proposal is in the same field as the Amendment which we have just discussed. The effect of it is to cut out a proviso which exempts the pipes on the consumer's side of the meter, where water is supplied by meter to a factory or pre- mises belonging to a railway company. The considerations are similar, and arise from the fact that there may well be contamination and bad effects upon the public supply from water which has been used, or from water from another source of supply in a factory or on railway premises. There is no reason to think that everything on the consumer's side of the meter is safe from those consequences. There is a real danger from cross-connections between polluted sources and the mains supply, and the existing law, which would be altered if this proviso were retained, should, I think, prevail. The factory manager will be able to obtain the consent of the undertakers to make a minor alteration or attachment without referring to them every time. This is no rigid prohibition, it is merely to provide that the pipes on the far side of the meter should be in the same position as in cases where the supply is not by meter.

I am not proposing to speak again, because we covered this point, except to refer to one aspect. Consider the position of a chemical laboratory where different pieces of apparatus are being attached—a distillation tube, a little water motor, dozens of things—from day to day. Will the chemical industry and laboratories and universities be able to get a general discharge, so to speak, under the one exemption? Otherwise the work of chemical laboratories will be entirely stopped.

I intended to cover that point. The consent has not to be consent to the attachment of each apparatus. I feel that undertakers would, in such cases, indicate a general consent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 99, line 44, leave out "passing of the special Act," and insert "date on which this section comes into force."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

I beg to move, in page 99, line 47, leave out "six," and insert "four."

It might be convenient to consider also the next Amendment standing in my name: In page 99, line 49, leave out "six," and insert "four." The import of both, like their wording, is identical. The purpose is to ensure that on new capital raised by water companies the rate of interest should be limited to four per cent. instead of six. The Schedule as at present drafted, under paragraph 74 ( b ), stipulates that it may be up to six per cent., that is, on new issues, after the date of the passing of this Bill. I and my hon. Friends have no intention or desire to affect the rates of interest on existing capital, or to tamper with them. They stand on their own footing. But our feeling is that six per cent. is too high a rate of interest on new issues.

I have raised this matter previously and have pressed it strongly, but I have not met with much succeess. I am a little more hopeful to-day than hitherto that the Minister may be able to meet this point. I had to talk to him most seriously in Committee on the matter. He himself rather helped me this morning in his very first Amendment, which provided that any person who wants a new supply of water for new houses—there will be a lot of these new houses and a lot of this extended supply of water, which is what makes us so keen about the financial terms on which it is arranged—any builders who are setting up a row of houses, for instance, or are building a new street, may be required by the water authority to pay to the costs of putting in the mains, by instalments, at the rate of one-eighth of the cost of the mains. But the undertakers may, if they think fit, require them to put down the whole of the money, as an assurance that it is a sound scheme and that they intend to proceed with the job, and that the water undertakers will not be left in the air. While that money is in the care of the undertakers the Minister's new Clause provided that the undertakers should pay a rate of interest of four per cent. That shows what a respectable rate of interest four per cent. is. It is rather high as things have been going recently. It was the old rate of interest throughout the 19th century on mortgages on household property.

The security which will be produced under this new Bill makes the water companies' stock of much greater value than before, and makes the script of a water company itself much firmer and better value than house property. So we consequently urge that 6 per cent. is an exceedingly high rate of interest to require the public to pay in respect of new issues. I know it has been urged that the Milne Com- mittee recommended 7 per cent. I do not know what on earth the Milne Committee were up to when they did it. I have looked through the list of members, and I fancy that most of them are people who are very interested in a high rate of interest. I do not like to say that sort of thing, but the personnel of the Milne Committee was not unduly democratic. It could not have been, or the Committee would not have recommended 7 per cent. The Minister is rather ashamed of 7 per cent. and he has put 6 per cent. in the Bill. His predecessor, and we hope for a great deal more from the Minister than we used to hope from his predecessor, acquiesced in a reduction from 6 per cent. to 5 per cent. I know that persons in another place reinstated 6 per cent., but they surely are not democratic people, and we need not accept their verdict. We should not be bound slavishly to the Milne Committee or to those who occupy another place.

I have said that there will be a greater demand for water fox new house property, and more will be needed for old house property when baths are installed for the first time and sanitation is provided. Under the law of increasing returns the water companies will do better and better. Yet they want this extraordinary rate of interest of 6 per cent. If the Minister has deferred to them, I suggest that it would be shutting our eyes to all modern tendencies and ignoring public policy, quite regardless of what we are urged to do in a dozen other directions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and I am sorry he could not stay with us, has from that very Box facing me urged that the most important thing to the recovery and reconstruction of our country is to keep down the rate of interest, and that the policy of cheap money is of paramount importance. Nothing more true was ever said from that Box. I would commend the Chancellor and his predecessor for raising all the money for this great war from which we are emerging at 3 per cent., indeed a great deal of it at 2½ per cent. and a good deal of short-term borrowing from the banks at 1 per cent. The way the Government have arranged for the financing of the war compares particularly well with the arrangements in the previous war, which was financed at 5 per cent. The Chancellor recognises that for peace purposes we must somehow or other keep down the rate of interest. He and his predecessors have got the Bank of England to keep the Bank Rate down to 2 per cent for ten years. That has been beneficial to the country ever since our troubles in 1931. A low Bank Rate and a general low level of interest have been very helpful.

Why should we put in this Bill that these private water companies, who have been entrusted with a public service under conditions quite as firm and as good as those enjoyed by local authorities, can offer 6 per cent. on their new money? I think it would be altogether wrong for us to do so. We have had Government publications to encourage me in my view. There has been consideration of a great barrage scheme over the River Severn. I am interested in it; I think it will effect my constituency very favourably. In that scheme it is laid down that the cost can be reckoned on the basis of 3 per cent. interest. Why should we put double that figure in this Bill, and permit water companies to float new issues at such a rate? It has been put to me, as though I knew nothing about it, that the rate of interest does not matter, as people will pay up to £108 for every unit of par stock, because it bears 6 per cent. interest. That is altogether wrong.

Issues from public authorities, whether public councils or railways or statutory concerns, anyone who is responsible in any way to the public, should be on terms which will get them the par price and no more. It is a great mistake to have companies with a lot of premium money inside them. It is very nice if you can get a lot of it, but it gets known, and ordinary people, particularly working people, are very acute about these things now and know that there are a lot of hidden reserves, as it were. They know that a high rate of interest is being paid, though they do not know as much as we do about the benefits of the reserves. This Bill provides for proper reserves in another way, which will be shown openly in the balance sheet. This premium money causes suspicions in the minds of ordinary people. I know, from my own knowledge, of a great city in the West of England and a market town in the East of England where a 7 per cent. rate of interest on water causes bad feeling about the water company. In the companies' own interests they should be prepared to accept the position and accept 1 per cent. more than the rate at which the Government raise their money. I think that water should be a wholly public service, financed with the assist ance of the Exchequer, but under this Bill we are leaving the companies as they are, and we are giving them a permit under this proposal which I consider to be extremely wrong. This House itself many years ago brought down the rate of interest on Consols from 3 per cent. to 2½ per cent. Goschen has been forgotten, but he was wonderful. He was forgotten by the Premier's illustrious father. In the heyday of Queen Victoria's peacetime, in 1897, because peace had been maintained, money became very abundant, and he was able either to redeem the Consols with new money or to induce the holders to take 2½ per cent. People may say, "What is the good of talking about that now?" We are more concerned, perhaps, now that the war in Europe is over, with what is happening in San Francisco than with anything else.

I must really pull the hon. Member up when he gets to San Francisco.

1.45 p.m.

I feel in my bones, and I prophesy, that San Francisco will make a great deal of difference to the finances of this country. If it is successful it will maintain the peace of the world, and money will be obtainable at very low rates of interest. At any rate I plead that the rate of 6 per cent. should not be held in this Bill. If it becomes obvious that this Government stand for 6 per cent. interest on business run with Government cover, gilt-edged in every way, against a rate of interest of 3½ per cent. on municipal business, the Minister will go down from his work, when he does go down, with the nasty blot on his scutcheon that he stood for 6 per cent. for private authorities running a public service.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is not good public policy, at a time when the Government have been insisting on the importance of borrowing money cheaply, to permit private companies, with monopoly rights within a prescribed area, to borrow money at 6 per cent. I have not calculated how it is going to affect the price of water, but a previous Minister of Health, the late John Wheatley, gave an interesting description in this House of the effect of interest on rent. He stated that on a house rented at 10s. a week, interest at 5 per cent. accounted for 4s. 6d. of that 10s.: in other words, nearly 50 per cent. of the rent of a working class house goes in interest, with a rate of 5 per cent. I have never heard that statement disputed, and it certainly was not disputed on the day it was made. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that a charge of 6 per cent. for water will represent more than half the cost of the water to the public. That is something which the House ought not to tolerate. Water is one of the prime necessities. We have been discussing the need for getting water into rural areas, particularly where wages are very low. The Government ought to protect those lowly-paid people.

We are granting a very valuable concession to any water company when we say to them, "You can supply this area of our country with water, under the conditions laid down in the Bill, and nobody can go into competition with you. You are given that monopoly by Parliament." In such circumstances it is almost criminal to put those people also in the privileged position of being able to charge the people to whom they sell water roughly twice as much as the price would be but for this interest. It is unfair to the people. It is giving a privilege to the private companies which will borrow under this Bill. It is far in excess of any privilege given to public undertakings supplying water. The Government themselves, in regard to the operation of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, keep down interest on money lent to private persons purchasing their own houses from the local authorities. If it is good public policy in those cases, I think that it would be wrong in principle and against public policy for the Minister to allow private undertakings to charge a rate of interest so much in excess of what many members of the Government have stated is an essential limit in the reconstruction period which lies ahead of us.

I listened with particular interest, as I always do, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden). I am sure he will not expect me to agree with all his observations, but with the latter part of his speech I find myself in general agreement.

My hon. Friend knows that the actual rate of interest which the water companies pay bears very little relation to the statutory maximum dividend. In fact, the rate of interest which they pay is not six per cent. or five per cent. but very little more than four per cent. That comes about through a series of historical accidents. Many years ago, when the legislation which we are now amending was passed, the supply of water was a hazardous undertaking. In order to obtain the necessary capital the under takers were permitted at one time to pay 10 per cent. on their ordinary capital, and at a later period to pay seven per cent. As the years went by the hazards of water undertakings grew less, and Parliament, very properly, intervened, and under the Standing Orders of another place water undertakings which came to Parliament to increase their capital were required to offer the new capital by tender or by auction. The result was, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the companies were able to issue their ordinary stock at very substantial premiums. To day the result is that the water undertakers are in fact paying on their capital very little more than four per cent.

The water companies have given a good deal of consideration to this matter, and in particular, to the point of view which has been expressed very fairly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol. He pointed out that the fact that there is a statutory maximum dividend on the ordinary stock of six per cent., arouses what he described as nasty suspicions in the mind of the public. I think the companies appreciate that the conditions under which their ordinary capital is at present issued may very well give rise to misunderstanding in the public mind. It is certainly not their wish that anything of that sort should happen. Indeed, I think they would welcome, subject to certain considerations which I am gong to mention, any thing which would bring the actual rate of interest which they are paying for their capital more into line with the statutory maximum dividend. There is one obstacle to that process, to which I ought to direct the attention of the House. The prior stocks of the water companies are, under the terms of the Trustee Acts, full trustee securities, provided that the undertaking has paid a dividend on the ordinary stock of not less than five per cent. for the 10 years preceding. It is very important for the success of the undertakings, and, indeed, it is in the interest of their consumers, that the stocks of the undertakings should retain their trustee status. The effect of that is that a much wider field of investors are able to invest their funds in the stocks of the companies. It is, therefore, a matter of paramount importance to the companies that their stocks should maintain their trustee status, and that their position as trustee stocks should not be in any way impaired.

I am sure the House will agree that there should be some limited flexibility between the maximum dividend which the Trustee Acts require to be paid on the ordinary stocks and the maximum dividend which the companies will be permitted to pay under this Bill. At present there is a margin of 1 per cent. The rate of interest called for by the Trustee Acts is 5 per cent. and under this Bill the Minister is fixing the maximum rate of dividend at 6 per cent. If the maximum dividend upon the stock were reduced by this Bill from the 6 per cent. which is proposed to 5 per cent., the result would be that a company might very easily find itself unable to maintain its stocks in the trustee class. The provisions of the Trustee Acts were settled in their present form many years ago. In many respects, they are out of relation to the conditions to-day. But the companies would desire to meet the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol. I, therefore, make this suggestion to him—that, provided the rate of interest under the Trustee Act is reduced from 5 per cent. to 4, the maximum dividend which the companies should be entitled to pay on their new ordinary stock under this Bill should be reduced from 6 per cent to 5 per cent. That is not going quite so far as the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I hope he will accept that as going a long way to meet the point of view which he has put so fairly to the House.

There are certain other Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for South Bristol. I do not know whether I should be in Order in making reference to them. There are two Amendments which my hon. Friend has put down which seek to restrict the reserve funds of the companies to 10 per cent. of the company's capital, in place of the 15 per cent. in the Bill, and there is another Amendment dealing with contingency funds along similar lines. If I am in Order in doing so, I would like—

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing the Amendments?

Let us see how far and in what connection the hon. and learned Member is referring to them.

I am obliged, Major Milner, and I am sure that, if I go beyond the point, you will call me to Order. I was about to say that the companies are anxious to meet the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend because they feel there is force in it. If it would assist him to accept the suggestion which I have made, the companies would be prepared to meet him as far as they can with regard to the sum which may be placed to reserve. I am bound to say that the companies are not prepared to go as far as he has asked us to go, but they would be prepared to meet him to this extent, that the reserve funds should be restricted to 12½ per cent. I hope my hon. Friend will think that that is a generous approach on the part of those of us who are able to speak for the companies in a genuine attempt—

Is the hon. and learned Member speaking on behalf of the Government?

I hope I have made it plain to the House on several occasions that I am able to speak, not only for local authorities, but for water companies as well. I have been asked to put these proposals before the House to-day in the hope that hon. Members opposite will treat them as a reasonable approach to this matter and be prepared to accept it as such.

I apologise for not having been here at the beginning of the Debate. The last remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) rather surprised me, and, I gather, one or two other hon. Members on this side of the House. Is the hon. and learned Member in a position to try to make a bargain, either with hon. Members of this House or anybody else? He may, quite obviously, speak for the local authorities, and he has, obviously, been well briefed by the water undertakings. But how he can get up here and try to strike a bargain with hon. Members of this House I can not, for the life of me, understand. What does the hon. and learned Member expect the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) to do? Does he expect the hon. Member to accept his kind offer on behalf of the water companies? This is the House of Commons, legislating, as we think, in the public interest. We are not here to strike bargains with private enterprise, or semi-private enterprise, in the way which the hon. and learned Member has tried to suggest. I hope the hon. Member for South Bristol will not give any countenance at all to the most extraordinary suggestion which has been made.

Surely, the hon. Member has no objection to the views of different interests being expressed in this House? Surely, he has no objection to the suggestion that those points of view may be acceptable to the Government?

It may, of course, be a question for the Chair, but I think it is quite wrong for any hon. Member to try to make bargains with the House of Commons.

I have no wish at all to make a bargain. It is for the House to decide what the terms of this Bill shall be, but it may help the House to come to a decision if the House is informed what the respective points of view of those interests most concerned are likely to be. It was in an attempt to express one of those points of view that I said what I did.

I still think that the whole approach has been objectionable, and that the people most interested are the consumers, and not necessarily the shareholders or the undertakers themselves. The hon. and learned Member suggested that it is very important, from the point of view of the various undertakers, to know whether their stock is regarded as trustee stock or not, and he said that, if they paid 5 per cent. in the previous 10 years, it was regarded, legally, as being trustee stock. If they paid 4 per cent. in one of the 10 years, I imagine it ceased automatically to be trustee stock, but it might be that they redeemed themselves by going on paying 5 per cent. What is of great importance, so far as the under- taking is concerned, is whether it is trustee stock or not. Obviously, it is not a question whether it attracts new capital. All Government stock is trustee stock and they can borrow money at 2½ per cent. Why on earth should the stock of the various water undertakings have to pay 5 per cent. continuously for 10 years before it qualifies to be trustee stock at all?

We know perfectly well that it is desirable, from certain points of view, that there should be all sorts of stocks in which trustees can, without fear of being got at, invest their trust funds. Quite obviously, that is only a very small consideration and has no bearing upon the efficiency of the undertaking, or upon the supply of water in this particular case. My whole feeling, in supporting this Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Bristol, is this. Here we have a quasi-public authority supplying a public service. Why it should be that, under paragraph ( b ) of this Subsection, the rate of 6 per cent. should be regarded as a desirable figure, as opposed to my hon. Friend's suggestion of 4 per cent., I do not, for the life of me, understand. Why should they be put in this favoured position? Why should they have this power to exploit their monopoly position in the interests of their particular shareholders, and not in the interests of the people who have to pay the water rates?

The actual return obtained by the shareholder is not 6 per cent. It is very little more than 4 per cent.

I still think it is placing it at too high a maximum, and I think that a 4 per cent. maximum would be very much more desirable, and I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

I only wish to say a word in answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) about the value of obtaining trustee status. This Bill allows statutory undertakers to supply water in one place and municipal undertakers in another, and so long as we have statutory undertakers, we must try to see that, in the interests of their consumers, they are able to raise their money in the cheapest possible way. If a company enjoys the status of being on the trustee list, a very much wider demand for its stocks naturally exists, and, where the demand for something is greater, the price of the stock is greater than if a whole range of possible buyers is cut out.

May I interrupt my hon. Friend? He must have heard the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson) explain that the reason why these stocks did not carry 6 per cent., but something nearer 4 per cent., was not that they were issued either by auction or tender, but that the debentures were sold at a premium.

The hon. Member has not understood what I was talking about. I am talking about the debentures, the prior-charge stocks which, in many cases, contribute more to the capital of the undertaking than the ordinary stocks do. We have to consider how to sell the prior-charge stocks in the most advantageous way. Obviously, if a trustee is to be allowed, without further thought, to buy certain debentures, there must be some security to the beneficiaries that those stocks will continue to pay. In the past, the security has been in the fact that, after the money required for the service of the prior-charge stock, the profits had to meet 5 per cent. per annum for ten years on the ordinary stock. That is the only reason for that provision. It appears to me quite certain that, so long as we have—and I think, for other reasons, that we should continue to have—statutory undertakers supplying water, we must do all we can to see that they raise, not only the ordinary shares which are only part of their capital, but the whole of their capital, as cheaply as possible, and so it is important that the cost of raising their prior-charge debentures should be kept as low as possible. That is of real importance to the consumer, and, for that reason, I hope that steps will be taken to see that the water companies' prior-charge stocks remain on the trustee list.

This Amendment, moved by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Walkden), is, of course, as both he and possibly the whole House are aware, exactly the same as one which was moved in Committee and was defeated by a majority—I think, 15 to 8.

indicated assent.

It is one of a series of Amendments—if I may wander a little widely—concerned with reserve and contingency funds and matters of that kind. It is one of a series which, whenever the question arises, result in an alternating discussion as between whatever body is considering the particular figure which is concerned, whether it be a joint Commit tee or other Committee.

2.15 p.m.

It his been extraordinarily difficult to arrive at any certainty, balance or settlement with regard to these figures, as to which my hon. Friend has put down a series of Amendments. I, like him, and like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson), accept the view that some public misapprehension, misunderstanding and suspicion arise from the figure of 7 per cent., as it has been, and 6 per cent., as it is now. It is very largely based upon a fallacy, and my hon. Friend will have seen that I am proposing to bring into the Schedule, and not merely to leave for interpretation on each particular occasion, what is known as the Auction Clause, which insists on the stock being offered in the market so that the actual yield obtained upon his money by the investor is related not to this statutory figure, but to the actual state of the market. It would be as well that that should be upon the face of the Schedule.

I should be happy if I could anticipate that we would not have this alternating discussion, as it has been in the past and as, I fear, it will be again, both in connection with this matter of the maximum rate of interest and with the size of the annual amount to be set aside and so forth, what I am calling the 1½ per cent. and the 15 per cent. points. There is the difficulty to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford has referred in connection with the Trustee Act, and I am bound to say that I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). If there is to be a reduction in the figure of 6 per cent. in Section 74 it is necessary and only right that the trustee status of the prior stocks of the water undertakers should be preserved.

It will have been noticed that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford has put down an Amendment which would have the effect that, provided the dividend for the last 10 years has been 4 per cent. instead of 5 per cent., the prior stocks shall remain on trustee status. I am in a position to say that I can accept that Amendment on the trustee stocks, and if that be so, a great deal of the difficulty arising on my hon. Friend's Amendment would go. In the same way, I am advised that it would not be to the public disadvantage in any way to reduce the 1½ per cent. to 1½ per cent. and the 15 per cent. to 12½ per cent. I believe that at the end of this very long Measure, in which many most valuable accommodations have been reached on a large number of points, it would be by no means an unsatisfactory conclusion, if the House could reach common ground on this point as well. I need not say more. I have indicated what my attitude would be to several of these matters which are still before us, and I would be willing to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment if Mr. Deputy-Speaker would allow my hon. Friend to alter the word "six" to "five."

While I am grateful for the efforts that have been made, I am disappointed in their character. I have tried to appreciate the trustee position. I know that it helps to get money more readily and on cheaper terms when stocks are on the trustee list, but there is no reason why these companies should have a special preferential position in addition to all the advantages they get under Acts of Parliament. With regard to the suggestion that the figure, which is now "five" per cent. under the Trustee Act in respect of war undertakings should be reduced to "four" per cent., may I point out that, in the case of the railways, it is down to three per cent. and has been so all along? I cannot understand why water companies should have a higher minimum put in the Trustee Act than the railways. They are in a much better position than railways; they are in a strong statutory, financial, public and business position. They sell something which everyone must have and there is no competition. Their position seems to be so strong that they ought not to be put on a higher plane than railways, in respect of which it is three per cent. However, I have an assurance from another quarter that the point will be considered favourably. I have not had much time to consider the other suggestion about the building up of reserves. I do not know whether Mr. Deputy-Speaker will allow a further discussion on that or would desire that I should say a little more now.

We have had a very wide Debate, and it should be possible for the House to come to a decision without having a further discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I know that it will meet with the wishes of the House, and I am always anxious to do that. As it is late, not so much in the day as in the year and life of this Parliament, and there is a lot of work to be cleared up, and we want this Bill, which is a helpful Bill though it does not go as far as it might, I will, without prejudice to the position, be willing to amend my Amendment to insert "five" per cent. instead of "six" per cent. On the further Amendment relating to maximum reserves, I will agree to "fifteen" being replaced by "twelve and a-half" instead of "ten," and with regard to the ratio to be set aside annually to build up the reserves I agree to amend my Amendment to make it 1¼ per cent. instead of the 1 per cent. I hope that that will make for a general settlement and lead to the acceptance of the Bill.

Question, "That the word 'six,' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'four,' be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.

Amendment made, in page 99, line 47, by inserting, in lieu of the word "six" left out, the word "five."—[ Mr. A. Walkden. ]

Further Amendment made: In page 100, line 4, leave out "passing of the special Act," and insert:

"date on which this Section comes into force."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

I beg to move, in page 100, line 7, at end, insert:

" Sale of stock by auction or tender.

Provided that:

(3) Any stock which has been offered for sale in accordance with the last foregoing Sub section and is not sold may be disposed of at such price and in such manner as the under takers may determine for the purpose of realising the best price obtainable.

(4) As soon as possible after the conclusion of the sale or sales, the undertakers shall send a report thereof to the Minister stating the total amount of each class of stock sold, the total amount obtained as premium (if any) and the highest and lowest prices obtained for each class of stock."

I have already given sufficient reasons for including this new Clause known as the Auction Clause in the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 100, line 7, at end, insert:

"(3) Paragraph ( l ) of Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Trustee Act, 1925 (which includes among trustee stocks any debenture, guarantee or preference stocks of water under takers, being a company incorporated by special Act of Parliament or by Royal Charter, if for the previous ten years the company has paid a dividend of not less than five per centum on its ordinary stock) shall apply in a case where the undertakers are incorporated by statutory order as well as in a case where they are such a company as is referred to in that paragraph, and shall have effect, in any case to which the paragraph as extended by this Sub-section applies, as if for the words 'five per centum' there were substituted the words 'four per centum.'"

I have already explained the matter and I do not propose to go over it again.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 100, line 16, to leave out from the first "or," to "of," in line 17, and insert: constructing something additional and beyond the original capitalisation of the company. Therefore, if this is allowed to pass as it stands, it means that water companies will be able legally to set aside reserve funds, out of charges which they make upon water consumers, which can be used for the purpose not merely of maintaining their capital as it was and providing renewals and replacements, but for the purpose of increasing the amount of capital which is invested in the under taking in the shape of fixed assets, such as plant, machinery, works and so on.

Look at the consequences which may, in certain cases, flow from this arrangement. I am not arguing this as a case for municipalisation, but cases can, and do, properly arise in which a public utility undertaking ought to be transferred to a local authority, and the local authority have to purchase the assets of the proprietors of the public utility undertakings. I am not questioning the right to compensation in such cases, but if the water company has not only invested its own original capital in the undertaking, the money which it raised from the public by issuing its shares and debentures, but has also invested much of what it has raised by means of excessive charges upon the consumers of water, and those very consumers, in that case, will then be required to pay compensation to the stock holders of the water company for additional assets which have been created and paid for in effect by the consumers themselves.

Therefore, this is a very serious point of principle upon which I hope the Minister will show sympathy so as to put this matter upon a logical and clear foundation, distinguishing between provisions for depreciation for the exhaustion of the original capital and provisions, in effect, for increasing the capital which ought not to be a proper charge upon the consumers of water.

2.30 p.m.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am afraid I am bound to resist this Amendment. It would, as I think my hon. Friend realises, have the effect of precluding any company from using any part of this fund for any enlargement or improvement of its works. That is, I think, its intention. Now that is a surprising contention with regard to a contingency fund. The Government, in framing this Bill, have of course had much assistance from the advice of the Milne Committee which included representatives—I would remind my hon. Friend and his seconder—of all classes of local authorities. The Milne Committee recommended that water companies should be able to use this fund for enlarging or improving their works and, of course, the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act which applies to most statutory water companies empowers the directors of such companies to set aside, without any limitation, sums for contingencies or for enlarging, improving, or repairing works. Parliament, during the last ten years, has I think consistently, certainly normally, authorised water companies to use contingency funds for this purpose.

The real point of the provision, of course, is that the consumer will benefit from improvements and enlargements of the works. Frequently the enlargement of the works is more than a replacement, but it is not an occasion for the raising of fresh capital—it might not be a good moment for the raising of fresh capital—and this suggestion that it ought always to be dealt with in that way is a strange one. The position, however, is safe guarded in the direction which my hon. Friend wants because the fund itself is limited and there are other calls upon it. That is where the safeguard lies. I am afraid I could not accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 100, line 33, leave out "fifteen," and insert "twelve and a half."

In line 41, leave out "and a half," and insert "one and a quarter."—[ Mr. A. Walkden. ]

On a point of Order. I think my Amendment which is wrongly printed on page 1036 of the Order Paper comes in at this point.

I think the hon. Member's point which had been put down originally as a new Clause ( For protection of London County Council ) on page 1036 should arise on page 106, line 24.

I beg to move, on page 104, line 48, after "therein," insert "or to abstract water."

This Schedule contains protective provisions for navigation authorities and railway companies and it is proposed in this Amendment and those which follow to include catchment boards. The words I propose to add here are necessary, so as to allow for authorised extractions of water as well as for specified works. The Water Undertakings Bill contained no powers for the extraction of water and the new words were not necessary in that Bill but they are necessary here.

I take it that it will be convenient to discuss all these Amendments together. I should like to thank the Minister for having put forward these Amendments for, without them, the Catchment Boards would in some cases not be able to dredge or use the banks for excavating. There is one point I would like the Minister to clarify. It deals with the word "enactment" and I think he will probably be able to answer this. I understood from what he said that enactment is not covered by law. Catchment Boards have other powers under public or private Acts but very often it is the by laws which govern their powers of dealing with these matters of clearing the channels and so on. The bylaw is very often approved by the Minister and I am not quite sure, and I think the Catchment Boards are not sure how far the bylaw will be the necessary authority. Very likely a bylaw which is based on certain words in this Schedule will meet the case but perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to clarify that.

I hope I can make this clear; I hope I have it clear myself. The word "enactment" to which my hon. and gallant Friend is referring will occur, of course, towards the end of Sub-section (1) of Section 92, and if I may I will read a few of the words showing the setting of the word "enactment." It stands in this way:

"Nothing in the special Act shall authorise the undertakers without the consent of the Catchment Board to execute any works which would interfere with the exercise by a Catchment Board of their functions under the enactment."

Now the catchment board will have made bylaws. I said that the enactment itself was not a word that would include by laws. Its bylaws would be made by the catchment board and enactment is of another character, but the bylaws will be for the purpose of enabling the catchment boards to perform their functions. Consequently, breaches of bylaws will be interference with functions under an enactment and therefore covered by the Amendment. Of course catchment boards are also protected by the sanctions in the bylaws themselves.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 104, line 18, at beginning, insert:

"or without the consent of the catchment board to execute any works which will interfere with the exercise by a catchment board of their functions under any enactment."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

Consequential Amendments made.

I beg to move, in page 106, line 24, to insert:

"Nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to except the undertakers from the provisions of an Act passed in the 57th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George III entitled 'An Act for Better Paving, Improving and Regulating the Streets of the Metropolis and removing and preventing nuisances and obstructions therein or from the loss of sewers for the time being in force within ten miles from the Royal Exchange in the City of London.'"

Although this is going back to rather a distant date, I am informed that the Statute referred to is still in force, still confers important powers upon the local authority, and ought to be preserved in operation until such time arrives as there is a general revision of legislation relating to these matters. It is on that account that I beg to move this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I will do so very briefly because everyone in this House and outside, I think, is fully conscious of the need for preventing any impediment to traffic in the streets of London. You cannot allow even the Metropolitan Water Board or any other body concerned with the supply of water, who may have to break up streets and so on, to do just as they like. Such regulations as have existed to safeguard the other authorities in London should not be destroyed, they should be con served. For that reason I hope the Minister will accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.

2.45 p.m.

This is one of the Amendments for which there has been no reasonable time for consideration, and which concerns the London County Council and really no one else. Neither I nor those in my Department at present entirely appreciate the full purpose for which it has been moved, and I do not think I could usefully discuss something so technical without full study, but if my hon. Friend will withdraw it I will see that it is given full consideration later.

I will gladly do that because I appreciate the difficulty the Minister is in, and I am sorry that he had not further notice of it. I think he will find that it may affect not merely the London County Council but other local authorities as well and that it is of some importance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—( Amendments of the Public Health Act, 1936. )

Amendment made: In page 107, line 13 leave out "twenty-eight," and insert "twenty-nine."—[ Mr. Willink. ]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—( Enactments repealed. )

Amendment made: In page 108, line 19, at end, insert:

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

2.47 p.m.

This Bill has now come to the end of a long and rather difficult journey, during which it has been nearly sunk by catchment boards, and all sorts of strange authorities. I congratulate the Minister on having piloted it through its difficult passage, and also for having redeemed a promise he gave early in his career as a Minister that he would introduce such a comprehensive Measure. I do not, however, give the Bill an unqualified blessing, because it has certain faults which will have to be remedied in the future. Further legislation will be necessary when we deal with the river boards. The whole business of the supply of water in this country will need further survey and consideration, but I am glad that this Bill has, at any rate, lifted us out of the 19th century. We had no up-to-date water code, and whatever this Bill does or does not do it gives us a new code which is of great value.

2.49 p.m.

As I think the House will appreciate, nobody is happier than I am to-day, because this comprehensive Water Bill is now about to receive its Third Reading. This is the most comprehensive Water Bill which has been presented to the House for at least 100 years and, if it is passed speedily through the other place, it will have been the first major Measure of a post-war character since VE Day. For 14 years I have been agitating for a Bill which would enable the Minister to provide the human and animal population with a proper supply of wholesome water, and I want to congratulate the Minister and those who have assisted him for the way in which they have carried through this technical and complicated Bill. I want to congratulate them on the courage and courtesy they have shown throughout. If cleanliness is next to Godliness, if we are all out for a higher standard of living, surely the first requisite is a proper water supply in order that hygiene and health can be established and maintained.

No one expects that everything will be all right in a few months' time, as if a magician had waved his wand. It has been an outstanding disgrace that seven-tenths of this country has been without a proper water supply, and it is only fitting that this effort should have been made now, particularly when the housing position is so acute. It is within the recollection of most of us that when the Ministry of Health were advocating that baths should be built into every house they well knew that there was no water to put into all those baths. Now, I hope, that sort of thing will soon go by the board. Yesterday, during Question Time, one of my hon. Friends stated that there were 60 villages in one part of Norfolk without a piped water supply. Such a state of affairs in an island so small as this is fantastic. If the House will forgive me for striking a personal note, I am glad that as a Member of this House I have been here to see a Bill such as this brought forward. In conclusion, may I again congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and also the water section of the Department of the Ministry of Health?

2.54 p.m.

I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister on having brought forward and piloted through this Bill, some of the provisions of which have been advocated by many of us in the past. I put forward a proposal in 1934 for a piped water supply over an extended area, and I found at that time that there would be great trouble in obtaining the necessary water. I see no indication in this Bill as to where the water which will be required will be obtained. The consumption per head in this country is 35 gallons per day, and owing to the advance of water borne sewerage schemes and so on it is estimated that that figure will rise to 80. In the United States the figure is 100. There is only one big reservoir which is not fully used, at Haweswater, but that cannot be counted on to supply all that will be required. Now the Metropolitan Water Board are looking for water. They do not want to go to Wales if there is any there, because that would probably be too far. If a reservoir is built on the Norfolk coast it would provide water over a large area through the catchment supplies. A drainage pump at St. Germain's has a capacity of four times the flow of the Thames and this could be pumped into the reservoir and afterwards pumped back into the mains, when, maybe, a turbine pump would be required; but who is going to advise as to these things? Does the Minister depend upon his advisory committee? If he does he is look- ing for trouble. At any rate, it means many Bills and much money being found in the future before the whole supply sys tem is complete.

3.0 p.m.

I would like to congratulate the Minister, especially on the friendly spirit in which he has dealt with every Amendment. I confess to the House that I take rather a pride in this Bill, because I was the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Milne Committee which made the prototype of it. Although this Bill introduces a good many alterations, I think the main points, and certainly the principles of the Milne Committee's recommendations, have been kept. What worried us in our deliberations—and this is where the Central Advisory Water Committee comes in—was the question of water conservation. We do not know what the future rainfall is going to be. I want to draw the attention not only of the Minister but of everybody interested in the question to the effects of afforestation on water supply. This is a matter which has not been sufficiently studied.

In Clause 3 one of the most important things is the question of the conservation of water. That is a very vague term. It is all very well to deal with under ground water supplies and the damming up of those supplies, but how does the water get there? I suggest that the experience of Australia and the United States shows that afforestation has a very large effect on it. I think that four aspects of this matter need to be studied. What is the effect of planting trees, not necessarily very big trees, first, on mist and condensation from the mist; secondly, on rainfalls; thirdly, on impeding the rapid flow of the rain by their roots; and fourthly, in drawing underground sources to the surface? The location of plantations should have an important effect in bringing water supplies to where they are wanted. Those, briefly, are the points to which I hope attention will be given. I am glad that this Bill has now reached its Third Reading stage.

3.3 p.m.

I want to congratulate the Minister, and to draw his attention to two specific points. Under Clause 26 the Minister's agreement to the taking of water from any stream must be obtained, and according to Sub section (5), he must take into account various circumstances, one of them being agriculture. I want to draw his attention to the fact that agricultural considerations have not only to do with the watering of stock, and so on. In my constituency in Hertfordshire there is a large number of watercress growers. The return per acre on the land or water under cultivation is extremely high, and reaches £1,000 a year; it is a very specialised form of agriculture which I should not like the Minister to overlook when he is giving his agreement to the withdrawal of water from any streams. I think I am right in saying that Hertfordshire produces about 20 per cent. of the watercress in this country, and that the total crop is worth £750,000 per annum over the whole country.

The second point to which I wish to draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention is the question of pollution. This is a question that is very close to my heart as a fisherman. When I came to the House, I came with one or two very modest ambitions. One of them was that when I leave the House I hope at the same time to leave the rivers of this country cleaner than when I came. The Minister must see that reasonable precautions are taken in the discharge of effluent into rivers. I see also in the Bill a provision that the reasonable use of tar and oil on highways must be allowed. I hope that the Minister will be very tough on this, and I hope I shall be here to back him. I think that far too much tar and oil has already spoilt our streams, particularly in the Home Counties, and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to interpret the word "reasonable" in, if possible, a rather unreasonable way.

3.6 p.m.

Having made prolonged and strenuous efforts in the Committee to try to improve the position of Fishery Boards under the Bill, I want to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he received those efforts. How ever tedious I may have been, he was invariably patient, smiling and courteous. I think I was completely justified in trying to improve the position of Fishery Boards, because we do not yet know that it will be possible during the lifetime of this Parliament to introduce a River Boards Bill which will affect the whole situation, and in the fear that that might not happen, I think I was well advised in the efforts I made. I did not get all that I wanted, but I feel that my right hon. and learned Friend was very fair.

3.7 p.m.

I also would like to wish the Bill Godspeed on its way to another place, but I hope it will not go there so quickly that my right hon. and learned Friend will not have time to give a little more consideration to one point that I would like to put to him. The Bill, as well as conferring very great benefits in anticipation—and I know that in my own constituency many townships have not got a piped water supply—also confers considerable powers, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston). There are powers to award penalties if the offence of pollution is committed. Clause 21 is drawn very widely indeed, so widely, in fact, that there is some apprehension on the part of those who conduct mining enterprises, in the part of Cornwall which I have the honour to represent, that they will have their existing legal rights with regard to water adits entirely taken away by this Bill, and that in the course of law fully conducting mining operations they will find themselves polluting water being used for human consumption, or water which, in the words of the Bill, is likely to be used for human consumption. Those words are very widely drawn, and there is considerable apprehension on this point. I want to ask the Minister whether, when the Bill is taken to another place, he can see his way to introduce some new words which will ease the position with regard to those who conduct mining and make it clear that it is not intended to trample upon what are, as described in the words of the Duchy of Cornwall Act, 1844,

"the lawful rights, powers, profits, privileges and easements of those who are engaged in winning, working, or making merchantable, minerals or mineral substances."

I hope he will do his best to look into the point and I wish him all success.

3.10 p.m.

I, too, welcome the Bill. I learned a lot in Committee, and that was largely owing to the way the Minister of Health handled the business. People in my part of the world who have not a supply of piped water constantly ask me whether the powers in the Bill are equal to the job of bringing them the water. I have told them that they are. For the first time the Minister will have adequate information at his elbow about the surface and underground resources of water in England and Wales. I have always set great store on the compilation of basic data at the centre, for a national policy for water cannot be carried out without such information. Now, at last, we are going to get it. The Minister has for the first time a specified duty to promote over the whole country a supply of wholesome water.

It is, however, Clause 28 that really interests us in the countryside. There the duty is firmly placed on local authorities to secure a supply of water in pipes in all districts in their areas where there are houses or schools, and to carry those pipes to points where a connection can be made with the houses at a reasonable cost. Some of the country people are wondering whether "at a reasonable cost" may not provide a chance for a local authority to evade its duty, but in the same Clause there is a provision whereby, if a local authority refuses to put down a supply because it considers the cost unreasonable, 10 local government electors can request the Minister to determine the question whether the cost is reasonable or not. Certainly where I come from, if the local authorities do not give an assurance that the water will come as soon as labour and materials are available, my right hon. Friend will receive petitions not from 10 local government electors but, judging by the feeling of the Women's Institute, from every single man in the village, because the women will not let one of them off.

I should like to support what the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. John Grimston) said about watercress. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) had down a Clause dealing with the danger to watercress growers under the powers that the Minister will have.

We cannot discuss on Third Reading a Clause which was not moved. We can only discuss what is in the Bill.

In Part IV the Minister has power to define an area which may re- quire special measures to be taken for the conservation of water. It is thought that those powers might be used in such a way as to impede the growth of water cress. I am glad the Minister of Food is on the bench. I want to say a word in praise of watercress. The dictionary says that its pungent leaves are used in salads and as an anti-scorbutic. Certainly the experts in vitamins were so impressed by these qualities that they persuaded the Ministry of Agriculture to stimulate its production during the war. It has played a notable part in the war effort. We do not know what a sprig of this cress may have meant to the strength of a commando or the accuracy of an anti-aircraft gunner. It is possible that by this Bill, which looks forward to times of peace, watercress growers may be seriously prejudiced.

I am moved not only by the useful qualities but by the beauty of this thirsty plant. No salad bowl looks well without it. Surely, it will not be denied that its dark green, velvety leaves are an admirable foil to the sharp pink of the rotund and vulgar radish. And would it not be a cruel blow if at a time when, after long years of absence, the orange is re appearing on our tables, this glorious sun-coloured fruit should return to find that its perfect companion, watercress, no longer shares the honours at the side of an Aylesbury duckling? It would be sad indeed if the Government in their modern zest for planning and providing the necessities of life were to overlook the beauty and the taste of this succulent and sulphurous nasturtium. I appeal to the Minister to think of the salad bowl, and of the sandwich that he so well deserves at this moment, and of picnics on the river, and also of roast duck. I hope he will be able to tell us that he will not exercise his powers harshly.

3.14 p.m.

I think it would be proper if one more Member on this side joined in the congratulations which have been showered on the Minister for having piloted the Bill through with such a maximum of good feeling through out the proceedings. There is no doubt that it will make a tremendous difference to the countryside. There is no doubt of the need for it. It is a terrible thing in the twentieth century that there should be a possibility of a shortage of water. I hope the Bill will reach the Statute Book very speedily and that its provisions will be implemented at the earliest possible moment.

3.15 p.m.

I believe that this Bill will be a major contribution to the reconstruction legislation which will be needed in the immediate future. The problems of the water supply do not lend themselves readily to spectacular treatment but that is not a good ground for failing to recognise the great contribution which the Minister has made in this Bill to this important topic. The Bill will make possible many things which have not been possible hitherto. Problems of water supply are very largely associated with problems of surveying and planning and the Bill, for the first time, makes provision for the proper surveying, planning and allocation of the water re sources of this country. That is a thing which has not been done hitherto and I think the House should recognise the great contribution which the Minister and his Department—perhaps I might include this House as well—have made in undertaking a Measure of this nature in the difficulties of the present time.

I should like to join in the congratulations which have been offered to my right hon. and learned Friend for his conduct of this complicated and complex Measure. It is a Bill in which many different and diverse interests are involved. I am not going to dwell on the merits or otherwise of watercress. I am sure that the Bill will permit the stimulation and appreciation of watercress and will certainly do it no harm; but there are other and perhaps more important interests than watercress that are concerned, and I would like to assure the Minister that, so far as I am able to speak for those interests, it is appreciated that he and his Department have made a major contribution to this important public service. I would like to add my own personal thanks for the courtesy I have received from him throughout the Bill and my appreciation of the accommodating spirit and the consideration which he has shown to those of us who have endeavoured to put different points of view during the passage of the Bill.

3.22 p.m.

I would like to express to my right hon. and learned Friend, as one who gave him a good deal of work in the earlier stages of the Bill, particularly on the famous Clause 14, my appreciation for the way in which he has got the Bill through the House. He started as an experienced campaigner and ends as a veteran in Committee work. I thank him for all the courtesy he has shown and for the way in which he has endeavoured, in many cases successfully, to meet the wishes of those of us who take an interest in this matter. We are also indebted to the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, who co-operated with him in the early stages of the Bill. I am sure it would be the wish of the House that my right hon. and learned Friend should convey to her our appreciation for her part.

3.23 p.m.

I am deeply grateful for the kindly re marks that have been made about myself. I am even more appreciative, I think, of those observations which have been made with regard to the work of many others, whose work over a period of years, both on the Milne Committee, which included my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Sir A. Heneage), and in the Department, has laid the foundation, and not only laid the foundation, but completed the superstructure, of this Bill, and who have been of such constant assistance to me, and, therefore, to the House, in the course of these discussions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden) who has taken so large a part. He realises, as I do, that this is not merely a new water codification. There are many most valuable new provisions in the Measure as it has been framed by the House in the assistance it has given me. I welcome, and shall convey, the message that it was suggested I should give to the right hon. Lady who is my Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to express on my own behalf the indebtedness I feel to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary, who have been of such assistance on many points that have arisen. I shall remember the point raised by my right hon. Friend opposite with regard to mining. It will be impossible, after the disquisition about watercress, which we enjoyed from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), that I should forget watercress, though I must frankly say that my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) has slightly less affection for watercress from the public point of view than the two hon. Members who spoke about it have evinced. Both in Committee and here to-day, the House has been of the greatest assistance to me, and I tender to it my genuine and sincere thanks.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

This Amending Order refers to a part of my constituency, and I want to say a word to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food. He has, in introducing it, brought to an end at long last a situation which has caused a considerable amount of dissension among farmers and producers in the Northern part of my constituency, some of whom have fought against being included within the scope of the Order. I know that the vast majority of milk producers welcome the Order, and they have done their utmost to urge the authorities to bring it about. For that reason, I welcome this amended Order. I would like to mention two small points. One of the paragraphs refers to the island of Islay and the Milk Marketing Board's operations in that island. The Minister will remember that we had certain correspondence with his Department on this question, and we asked him what were the possibilities of their, the Board's, operations being continued after the war. I realise that this is an Emergency Powers Order and that it will probably come to an end with the emergency period, but if my right hon. and gallant Friend can indicate that his Ministry will be in favour of the continuance of these operations, he will give the greatest satisfaction to the inhabitants of that island. In the second paragraph Lismore is included in the parish of Lismore and Appin. Lismore, however, is not on the mainland, but is an island. Transport facilities to the island are extremely inadequate, and I am wondering whether, in introducing that island into this Order, any arrangements are to be made to facilitate the transport of milk when it is collected by the Milk Marketing Board.

3.29 p.m.

I will look into the point my hon. and gallant Friend has made in regard to the island of Lismore; I do not know the position at the moment. The idea of this scheme is to give better marketing facilities and to enable milk producers to introduce better quality milk and to get the higher price that will then be paid for it. Although I cannot give any undertaking as to what will happen after the emergency is finished, I think that it would be a poor thing if we did not continue a scheme, if it has been a good one, when the emergency has passed.

Question put, and agreed to.

I desire to raise the question of the liability of the Ministry of Food for losses incurred on the British Restaurants in the Colne Valley Division by the Colne Valley Urban District Council. I am sorry to bring the Minister here to-day and I regret that I have to detain the House even for a short time. I have done my best over a period of some 18 months to get the Minister to see reason in this matter, unfortunately, so far at any rate, without result. It may be argued that this is purely a local matter, and in one sense that is so, but in my view it raises questions of principle which have wider aspects. The principle which it raises is whether the circulars and letters issued by any Government Department can be taken at their face value, or whether later on it can be said by a Department that they did not really mean what in fact the ordinary person taking words in their ordinary meaning, thought they meant.

Briefly the story, so far as the Colne Valley is concerned, goes back to 1940 when, as the House will remember, conditions were very different from what they are to-day. There was then a fear of imminent invasion and a good deal of pressure was brought to bear, and I think very properly so, by the Ministry of Food upon local authorities in order to get them to establish British Restaurants or feeding centres. One has to remember that Colne Valley is a scattered rural area. It is, however, adjacent to Huddersfield, and there is not the slightest doubt that at that time the Ministry of Food thought that if Huddersfield were bombed and damage were done it would be necessary to evacuate the population to the surrounding areas. I believe that was the chief reason why at that time so much pressure was brought on the Colne Valley Urban District Council to establish these feeding centres in its area.

On 6th November of that year Lord Woolton wrote to the chairman of the council and asked for his assistance in founding local feeding centres. On 13th November the council received a letter from the divisional food office. Two days later they got another letter from the Ministry of Food, itself. It is obvious from this that within the short space of a week or so letters were coming from the Minister, from the divisional office and from the Ministry of Food itself pressing the local council to do something. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Circular from the Ministry of Food read as follows: feeding centres should be opened up. Part of the letter, a copy of which I take it the Minister has, read:

I know that in many areas, certainly in most towns, British Restaurants have been a great success, but there are country areas—and unfortunately many parts of my division are among them—where the people have not the habit of going to a restaurant or café for a meal. They either take their midday meal with them to the mill or to the factory, or else, as frequently happens, they live within striking distance of their homes which allows them to go back there for their meals. The sum of 1s., 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d. a day means to them a substantial outlay in the course of a week and they do not undertake it lightly. All that, was well within the knowledge of the council when this matter was under discussion. It is obvious that at that time the Ministry was—I use the word in no derogatory sense—in somewhat of a panic. It realised that big towns were adjacent to this area, and that it was essential by hook or by crook to get the urban district council to open up these restaurants, and through their agents, they made certain promises in order to meet the fears of the officers of that authority.

The restaurants were duly opened in three different centres of the Colne Valley council area. One of them was closed down towards the end of the last year, and the last two of them were closed down early this year. The nett loss upon them is somewhere in the region of £1,400. It is not a great sum, but it means in that locality 3d. on the rates.

Why did the restaurants fail? I have already indicated that, owing to the dearth of population and the habits of the people there was no real need for the restaurants. But the case which I think I have to establish is whether the losses that have occurred come within the terms of the circular letter which was issued by the Ministry of Food in November, 1940. I have gone through that document and through the correspondence very carefully. There have been many interviews on this matter. I have talked to the local officials in the Colne Valley area, and we have gone through the accounts carefully. It is obvious to me that the local community feeding committee did everything in its power to make the restaurants a success and, that being so, that the losses were unavoidable in every sense of the word.

There were other reasons which helped to make the loss larger than it otherwise would have been and to prevent any profit being made. Local mills were urged by the Ministry of Labour to set up canteens or, if they had them, to improve them. Local mills certainly did that over the whole area touched by these restaurants. The Ministry of Food and the county council decided to establish school canteens in the Marsden area, which comes under the Colne Valley authority. That meant a loss to the restaurant near the schools. The National Fire Service which, in the early days after the restaurants had been established, took at least 100 meals from the Slaithwaite centre, afterwards made its own arrangements. This, too, meant a substantial loss to the committee. Many of the soldiers who were billeted in the area in large numbers in the early days were later drafted away. The troops had been a very important stand-by to the restaurants for many months. In addition—and one does not quarrel with this—cafés and restaurants which were functioning in the locality were given increased facilities to supply their customers, which heightened the competition against the restaurants and reduced the numbers to be served. In addition, the council found overheads increased by the fact that when they proposed to open a restaurant in Golcar and arranged with the local Conservative club for premises at £80 a year, the Ministry insisted upon their requisitioning the premises and paying £100 a year; Over the years this has added to the loss.

I understand that the reply of the Ministry will be that the losses were incurred because the Colne Valley Community Feeding Committee would not charge proper prices when they saw that a loss was being suffered. To begin with, they charged the amounts laid down in the Circular issued by the Ministry. Later, when the Minister called attention to the matter, the committee did raise the prices of meals, although they had to be careful not to raise them too high, because if they did they would have got no one there at all. They had to compete with the charges made by the co-operative café and other cafés and restaurants that happened to be in the area.

About a year ago, the Minister was good enough to write me a letter on the subject, in the course of which he said:

Unfortunately, this did not happen and eventually as the Minister desired they should be kept open his Ministry took over the two restaurants that were left and ran them for six months in order to demonstrate that they could be run profitably. What happened? It is interesting to see what the result was. The Ministry took over the remaining restaurants in July, 1944, and ran them until January of this year. The loss for the first three months of Ministry management—efficient and good management, was £149. During the next three months there was a profit of £79 due, I am told, to special meals, which were provided for the Home Guard and others during that period. Even making allowances for that and for other factors which entered into the matter, it is true to say that over the six months, those restaurants, run by Ministry officials with all the expert knowledge at their command, showed a net loss of about £70 and that there was no increase whatever in the number of ordinary meals served.

I submit that, under the terms of the letter of the Minister to me, a case is made out for some assistance towards meeting the loss with which this local authority is saddled, on its community feeding centres. Officials and members of the council interested in this matter have spent many weary months upon it and have tried everything within their power to make the restaurants a success. Owing to the fact that the National Fire Service provided for itself elsewhere; that a school canteen was established; that mill after mill had, at the instigation of the Ministry of Labour, also opened canteens, a very great difference was made to the chances of success of these restaurants and I think that this being so the case comes well within the terms of the original circular, in which the Ministry agreed to meet losses if they were due not to mismanagement on the part of the authority concerned but to causes outside their own control. Undoubtedly the causes I have mentioned were well outside the control of the Colne Valley Urban District Council and were of a kind they could not have visualised when, at the instigation of the Ministry, they started their restaurants in the first instance.

If the Minister cannot meet the whole of these losses I hope that he will agree to-day that we are entitled to ask him to meet some of them, particularly as he has tried for six months to make these restaurants pay and has found that his officials, notwithstanding their greater experience, were making no better fist of the matter than did the local council.

3.50 p.m.

I am glad that after this Adjournment Debate has had to be put off for one reason or another oh a number of occasions, we should be able at any rate to deal with it to-day. I quite agree with my hon. Friend who has raised this matter that he has done his best, as he put it, to get his right hon. and gallant Friend to see reason. I, on my part, think that I have done my best to get him to see reason. The facts are that these three British Restaurants were opened and were run for quite a considerable time. The Circular that the Ministry sent out said that they were prepared to reimburse any approved operating deficiency in the event of a loss being unavoidably incurred. The same Circular said that the centre should be conducted on a fully self-supporting basis, provision being made for necessary overhead expenses, including amortisation of capital expenditure and a small margin for contingencies. We could not, of course, say to a local authority that we would pay any loss out of the public Exchequer without having a real, close control. We obviously could not under write whatever a local authority did in running British Restaurants in its area. The Public Accounts Committee would have quickly got on to the track of the Ministry of Food had it conducted its business in that way.

The whole question really comes down to whether, in this particular case, we as a Ministry, and I as the Minister—for as my hon. Friend knows, I have been very fully into this case on two occasions prior to this—should say that this loss has been unavoidably incurred. There is one little matter my hon. Friend mentioned which I should correct. Although after an inter view with me last year, we did underwrite the expenditure for the last six months while we were watching the undertaking, we only took on the actual running of these two restaurants for the last three months of last year. We came in some time just after the middle of October, I am told, and actually ran them in November, December and January.

It is possible that the Minister may be right, but my information is, and it has never been contradicted, and has appeared in the Press and in letters to the Ministry, that he actually took over towards the end of July.

I particularly inquired into this point when my hon. Friend was speaking. I naturally did not know it of my own knowledge. I was assured it was in the middle of October. At any rate, during the months when we admit having been in charge we made in November a profit of £47—not a vast one—a loss of £17 in December and in January again a profit of £49.

For a special reason.

The special reason, I think, may have been the one my hon. Friend gave, that the people from the Ministry may have been, and I think it is probable were, more expert in this matter than those from the local council. At any rate if one looks back over the past, and sees how this £1,300 loss arose, it will be seen that it really came quite largely during a time when the local authority had in a catering manager. I think they had two successive ones, both of whom were, of course, paid salaries. The council got rid of them after a time, and they seem to have been not very efficient organisers of these restaurants. Certainly, the restaurants would not bear the expenses of their salaries in addition to the ordinary wages paid to the people there. Moreover, during that time, whereas usually the staff of a British Restaurant takes 30 per cent. of the income, it was from 43 to 50 per cent. of the income in the case of these restaurants, which really was a cost on the staff side which these small restaurants could not bear. Then it was quite true that for a long time these restaurants were run at prices for meals which were showing a loss, when 9d. could well have been charged for the main course all the time. It is quite a usual charge in canteens and restaurants up and down the country. Usually one pays 9d. for the main course, with two vegetables, so that the price of the whole meal, if one has, perhaps, a cup of tea or coffee, comes, with a sweet priced about 3d., to about 1s., 1s. 1d. or 1s. 2d.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and gallant Friend again, but if 9d. is reasonable, and I am not questioning that, why was it that when the Circular to which the Minister has referred was sent out to people who had never run restaurants before, it was suggested that they should charge 5d. or 6d. for the main dish, which they did?

I think the figure was higher than 5d., but it was lower than the figure of 9d.—I think 7d.

The suggestion of my right hon. and gallant Friend's Ministry was 5d. or 6d.

I do not think that our suggestion was 5d. or 6d., but I cannot put my hand on the Circular at the moment.

Is it not a fact that the Ministry sent out a little booklet? At that time, I believe, the Ministry indicated that the intention was to staff by voluntary workers, and the prices were on the basis that the whole charges for staffing would not fall on the restaurant. I believe that the Ministry were aiming at a figure which was economic at that time.

That is quite true. If a large part of the staff were Supplied by the W.V.S. or by some similar organisation, as it is was in many of these restaurants, the prices were all right. But as the year went by some of these ladies were called up into industry or had not time to go to the restaurants. Circumstances changed, and with great respect to this council—and I know that they tried to do a good job with these restaurants—my view is that they ought to have seen the trend of things and increased their prices, as did industrial canteens and other British Restaurants: Instead they ran along on their price level for a considerable time, about two years, when it became apparent to anybody looking at the accounts that their British Restaurants were being run at a loss.

Those are the facts of this case. I have to say to myself, "Was that unavoidable?" I frankly do not think it was. I think the council ought to have looked at these accounts and said, "We are obviously running at a loss. What do we do? It is rather expensive keeping on this catering manager. Could we not do without him?—or her, I forget which it was. Is it not a time when, having to pay more of our staff, we have to raise the price of our main dish, as practically every other establishment in the country has done?" I think they could have done what other establishments did.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Buchan-Hepburn. ]

I gave the guarantee for six months. We went in and ran the concern for the last three months of this year. We made no great profit, but we made a profit; and that brings me to the inevitable conclusion that the loss was not unavoidable. I would like to help my hon. Friend. I gave what help I could in keeping these restaurants going for another six months, and, as he said, this is not an isolated case. If I gave way to his importunities, I am sure that in stricter times the Public Accounts Committee would take the line that I was not a proper guardian of the public purse. I am sorry that I cannot give more comfort to my hon. Friend, but I cannot stretch the rules far enough to meet this case.

I may, of course, be wrong, but I have been told by those concerned that the Ministry ran this restaurant for six, not three, months. It is true that a profit was made for two out of the last three months, but in the first three months there was a loss of £100, when the Ministry was running the restaurant. Would the Minister be prepared to meet the loss incurred when his Ministry was running the restaurant, if it could be shown that the Ministry was running it at that time?

If it could be shown that I was running it for six months, in stead of three, and that there was a loss during the first three months, I would, of course, meet that loss.

4.4 p.m.