HL Deb 19 July 1881 vol 263 cc1247-50
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT (for Lord DORCHESTER)

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true that since Saturday a considerable portion of this Metropolis has been deprived of the high service water supplied by private companies reaping large and yearly in- creasing profits from the inhabitants; also, whether any, and, if so, what means of redress are afforded to payers of water rates suffering under this privation? The noble Viscount said that, during the last few days, the Western and Northern districts of London had suffered much from deficient water supply. He had made inquiries at the offices of the Water Companies, but could not get any satisfactory explanations from them. He then went to the various Vestry halls, and found that those Vestries had communicated with the Water Companies, and had also failed to receive satisfactory replies. In support of his statement, he had received a letter from the Vestry clerk of St. George's Union on the subject, which he would read to their Lordships. St. George's, Hanover Square, Board Room, Mount Street, W., July 19, 1881. My Lord,—I beg to forward herewith, by direction of the Nuisances Removal Committee of this parish, copy of a letter sent by the committee to the Grand Junction Waterworks Company to-day, with regard to the failure of the water in the in-wards of this parish. I also forward a copy of a letter on the subject from the Medical Officer of Health, read to the committee to-day. I may add that numerous complaints have been made at this office of want of water, and that I first communicated the fact to the Water Company on Saturday last. The in-wards of the parish are the portion lying between and including Piccadilly and Oxford Street. I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant, J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk, per A. C. H. The Lord Powerscourt. The Vestry clerk's letter to the Water Company was as follows:— St. George's, Hanover Square, Board Room, Mount Street, July 19, 1881. Dear Sir,—I am directed by the Nuisances Removal Committee of this Parish to inform you that the committee have to-day heard with much alarm that there is a failure in the water supply in the district supplied by your Company. In such hot weather a failure in the water supply is likely to lead to a serious outbreak of disease. Many of the water-closets are without water, and complaints of nuisance in consequence are continually being made to the Inspector of Nuisances. The Committee, in calling attention to this matter, earnestly hope your Company will remedy the evils complained of without delay. I may add that the street watering was neglected all day yesterday, as the water could only be drawn at one stand-post throughout the whole of the in-wards of the parish. I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully, J. H. SMITH, Vestry Clerk. E. O. Coe, Esq., Secretary of the Grand Junction Water Company. He would also read the letter of the Medical Officer of Health. St. George's, Hanover Square, Sanitary Department, 10, Bolton Row, Mayfair, July 19, 1881, Dear Mr. Smith,—I have written twice to the Grand Junction Company about the deficiency of water, and been to the office once; they say they are pumping all they can, and that so much is used in the streets, that they cannot get pressure enough up to carry it to the top of the houses. I think that a strong representation to them should be made by the Committee, as water is most needed now, and it seems to me that the Company are failing in their undertaking to the public, who are not responsible for the weather, and who have a right to insist on being supplied as long as they pay their rates. I am, dear Mr. Smith, yours very sincerely, W. H. CORFIELD, M.A., M.D. (Oxon.) An eminent legal authority had been consulted on the subject; but it would appear there was, practically, no redress. By an Act of 1847 penalties might be inflicted by the Board of Trade, and it might be desirable to make complaint in that quarter. No doubt, the subject was a matter which opened up the wide question of the general water supply for the City of London, and he thought that was a question which Parliament would have to take up very shortly. He did not see why London should be in a worse position with respect to its water supply than Dublin, Manchester, and other large towns, all of which had a constant and not an intermittent supply. Liverpool was making a great effort, and he did not think London should be behind. The noble Viscount concluded by asking the Question of which Notice had been given.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, since Saturday complaints have been received by the Local Government Board that portions of the district supplied by the Grand Junction Waterworks Company have been partially deprived of high service water, and yesterday the Board directed their Water Examiner, Colonel Bolton, to inquire into the matter. The shorter supply seems to have arisen from the heavy demand on the Company's low service, owing to the increased demand for road watering and private use, more especially for garden purposes. Moreover, this has been aggravated by the accidental bursting of a 30-inch main at Shepherd's Bush at 9 a.m. yesterday morning. It was, however, repaired, and the main put in working order by 12 o'clock last night, and the Water Examiner reports, on the information of the Company's engineer, that it would take all to-day to fill the exhausted low service and to reach the high ones. It is believed that in most cases where a Metropolitan Company fails to afford a proper supply of water, unless prevented by unavoidable cause or accident, a ratepayer might proceed, under the Waterworks Clauses Act, to enforce a penalty against the Company. The Local Government Board, however, can only take cognizance of any complaints of a short supply for domestic use upon a memorial signed by not less than 20 inhabitant householders paying rents for and supplied with water by the Company. If, after inquiry, it appears that the complaint is well founded, the Board are required to give notice to the Company, who, on failure to remove the cause of the complaint, render themselves liable to a penalty of £200, and a further penalty of £100 for every month while they remain in default.