§ 2.5 p.m.
§ LORD ADDISON had given Notice that he would move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill has been referred, that before authorizing the construction of the proposed reservoir and works near Datchet they should satisfy themselves that the consequent loss of a large area of valuable agricultural land has been fully considered.
3§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I venture to take the rather unusual course of asking the House to agree that the instruction contained in the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper should be taken account of by the Select Committee which is dealing with this Bill. I will explain to your Lordships, in a minute or two, why I do so. In the first place, however, let me say that, of course, London must have an adequate water supply at any cost, and if it is vitally necessary that that supply should be provided in this particular way, then everything must bow to that necessity. At the same time let me say this also. I have no personal interest in the area in question, or in anything connected with it, but it has been my business, in other capacities, to have a great and close interest in the agricultural affairs of this district. I should explain to your Lordships that the Bill which is now to be remitted to the Committee proposes, in fact, that there should be two large new reservoirs for the service of London's water supply. There are ancillary provisions as well.
§ I took occasion to look through the various papers that will be submitted to the Committee, and I did not find in any of them that account was taken of the diminution of food production that would be involved by putting these two reservoirs where it is proposed to put them. I may say, in this connexion, that one of the reservoirs is proposed to he placed more to the east than the one mentioned in my Motion on ground which is now largely occupied by gravel diggings and so on. Therefore, the amount of food-producing land that will be destroyed by reason of the construction of that reservoir is relatively small. But the construction of the reservoir referred to in my Motion will destroy some 800 acres, taking it all in all, of some of the most valuable market-gardening land there is, which is largely used for supplying the London market. I do not find in any of the objections which are to be taken account of any reference to the question of the destruction of food-producing land. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a matter of which account should be taken by the Select Committee which is to look into the proposal.
§ I suggest this because, although I have been told that this is the only spot where 4 the reservoir can be placed, quite frankly I remain entirely unconvinced. I do not feel satisfied that this particular place is the only place along the Thames valley which could be selected for the site of a new reservoir. I think that the Select Committee is entitled to inquire into that issue, and to see whether it would not be possible—as I think it would—to have the reservoir placed in some district where, at all events, much less destruction of good food-producing land would be involved. This is a subject which I am satisfied could be considered by the Select Committee, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that such an instruction should be given.
§ Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill has been referred, that before authorizing the construction of the proposed reservoir and works near Datchet they should satisfy themselves that the consequent loss of a large area of valuable agricultural land has been fully considered.—(Lord Addison.)
§ 2.8 p.m.
§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STANMORE)My Lords, your Lordships may expect a few words from me on this Motion. One of the purposes of the Bill is to give power to the Metropolitan Water Board to construct two reservoirs, one near Datchet and one near Wraysbury. This proposal has not been petitioned against. In the normal way, therefore, that part of the Bill which deals with the proposal would not be considered by the Select Committee; it would be examined by me, as Chairman of Committees, before the Bill is reported to the House. Before allowing this part of the Bill to proceed, I should have considered the reports of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Town and Country Planning—the three Ministers concerned. If any of these Ministers reported against this proposal, their opinion would have influenced me in my decision. If there was any doubt in my mind as to whether the scheme should be sanctioned, I should have referred the matter, under a Standing Order of your Lordships' House, to be fully considered by a Select Committee of your Lordships.
In the present case, I believe that your Lordships will hear that the matter has been fully examined by the Departments 5 of the three Ministers concerned, and that their view is that the proposal is justified On the ground that the need for an improved supply of water outweighs other considerations. After hearing what my noble friend has said, I think, however, that your Lordships would be better satisfied if the matter were thoroughly investigated from every point of view. Therefore I suggest that your Lordships agree to the proposed suggestion.
§ 2.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTHMy Lords, I should like to say one or two words, in view of what the noble Lord has said, in connexion with this new reservoir at Datchet. Members of the Metropolitan Water Board would view with very great anxiety anything that would prevent the Water Board being able to increase the amount of storage-capacity necessary for the future growth of the population of London. The Metropolitan Water Board is the largest water undertaking in the world. It supplies something like 8,000,000 people, and covers an area of supply of 640 square miles. There are three sources of supply: the Thames, the Lee and the wells. Of these, by far the most important is the Thames. There is no more water to be got from the Lee, and the well supply is relatively insignificant.
At the present time there are three large reservoirs under construction, and they would have been finished three years ago had not it been for the war. As recently as last year, your Lordships will remember, there was a serious shortage of water, which will remind the House that this is a very pressing question, and one which cannot be allowed to slide, because it may have very serious repercussions on the growth of London, which depends upon it. The demands for water are always increasing, and in fact in a recent White Paper it has been said that the demand for water is going up by leaps and bounds. It is quite clear, as regards the demand in London itself, that when the new houses replace the "blitzed" houses there will be very considerably increased facilities in those new houses for water, and we anticipate a very large demand in that respect. Even if the Abercrombie Report was put into operation, and no further increase of population was allowed inside London, the Board supply an area outside in which the people displaced 6 from the centre of London would live, and we should still be responsible for the supply. At present the average consumption is about 40 gallons a head and it is steadily increasing. We expect that very shortly it will reach 60 gallons a head. This is nothing exceptional, because in some American cities the consumption is as much as 200 gallons a head. Your Lordships will appreciate the fact, therefore, that we have to make very careful provision for the supply of water in future years for the population of London.
As regards the question of sites for these reservoirs, the Board have taken very great care in consulting technical experts as to where suitable sites are to be found. There are very few sites indeed available; in fact, these are the only two sites ieft within reasonable distance of London. It is essential in siting a new reservoir that the bottom of the site should be impervious to water. The London clay runs out just west of Slough, and this is the last site which is available. If it is refused, the Board's only possibility of getting an adequate site would be by going eighty or ninety miles further into the country, in order to obtain a suitable position where the strata are impervious to water. That would mean very heavy pumping charges, and the cost of the water-supply in London would be very considerably increased.
The Board very much regret having to ask to acquire this particular area. They fully appreciate the fact that it is of very great agricultural value, but at the same time they have no alternative but to ask the House to give them this site. In order to meet some of the difficulties of the agriculturist, there is a clause inserted in the Bill whereby some of the earth taken away from the reservoir will be used to fill in some disused gravel pits in the immediate neighbourhood, in order to bring them into cultivation. It is hoped by that means that some I30 acres which are now derelict will be brought back into cultivation. I hope that your Lordships, in view of the immense importance of this matter and the absolute necessity of London having an adequate supply of water, will see fit to refuse to send this instruction to the Select Committee, who, I feel, should approach this question wall an entirely free mind and decide it purely on its merits.
§ 2.16 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK)My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to the House, as my noble friend has raised this question primarily from the point of view of agriculture, if I said a few words. The Minister of Health, we are informed, is satisfied that there is need for a substantial increase in the water supplies, because the demand is increasing, as Lord Falmouth has just said. The land which is being dealt with in this Bill lies as a part of the river gravel plain of the Thames and in the Thames valley, and its general characteristic is light, easily-worked soil, warm and early, and especially suitable for the intensive production of vegetable and salad crops for the London market. The amount of land of this quality available for cultivation has been steadily diminishing for some time past, mostly owing to the encroachment of building development and gravel-winning, and the further loss of so large an area is therefore serious from the point of view of agriculture.
A number of alternative sites have, however, been considered, but it has been found impossible to find a practical alternative. The selection of sites for reservoirs is limited by the engineering possibilities, and particularly by geological considerations. They must have an impervious base covered with materials suitable for the construction of retaining walls. The long-standing policy for London has always been to take its water from as near as possible. Therefore the Thames is the main source, and the sites must have easy access to the river. Of these two sites, the one at Datchet is generally of higher quality, and is used for market gardening to a greater extent than the other site, at Wraysbury. It would therefore be of great advantage from our point of view at the Ministry of Agriculture if the Wraysbury site could be developed first, because we understand there may be a period of anything up to ten years before the second reservoir is put under construction.
While this Bill will definitely take a great deal of agricultural land away, it has, as Lord Falmouth mentioned, some very slight advantage, in that for the first time, so far as I know, in national 8 planning, the Departments have come together, and it is proposed, under Clauses 41 and 42, to make it possible for the surplus material and any surplus top soil to be used to refill many now derelict and water-filled gravel pits which have been worked out. By that means, we hope that a considerable acreage will be made available again for agriculture. We are satisfied that we shall have to lose a large piece of land, and I should like my noble friend opposite to know that we appreciate the good offices and intentions with which he has introduced this Motion. Should be feel it necessary to press this Motion, we should be prepared to accept it, the one point in favour from the point of view of the Ministry of Agriculture being that it would possibly bring to the Select Committee the point which I made earlier, that we should definitely like to see the site at Wraysbury constructed before that at Datchet.
§ 2.20 p.m.
§ LORD ADDISONMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Duke for what he has said, which I think greatly reinforces the suggestion I have made to the House. I am informed, and I think it is true, that the agricultural considerations were taken account of, although, of course, it was proposed, and it is still proposed, that the site at Datchet should be proceeded with first, whereas the noble Duke has just said that from an agricultural point of view there is no reason at all why the site of the inferior land, which would take five years to develop, should not be proceeded with first. That is another indication, to my mind, that food production considerations have not received the attention which I think they ought to receive, especially having regard to the exceedingly high value of the land. One other point mentioned, I think, was that there might be an alternative site some thirty miles away. That leaves me completely unconvinced. We can bring petrol across the country from Bristol to the Thames, and we can bring water eighty miles, and I think that would be better than destroying 800 acres of splendid market garden land that supplies the London market. I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Duke for offering to accept the Motion, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will do so.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.