HC Deb 18 July 1884 vol 290 cc1607-9
SIR ANDREW LUSK

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on the scheme for the sewage of the Lower Thames Valley; whether it is true, as seems to appear from the shorthand notes of the proceedings of the Committee, that they came to their decision, with regard to the division of the district, after hearing the evidence of two only out of eleven constituent authorities, and without hearing any evidence whatever on that point on the part of the other nine, or the Joint Board; whether that Report refuses the necessary power to the Joint Sewage Board to carry out a scheme for keeping the sewage out of the Thames, and, at the same time, refuses to protect the Joint Board and the ratepayers from penalties for its continuing to go in; whether the Joint Board was specially formed to deal with the difficulty of providing for the sewage of the district, after the separate authorities had failed, one after another, in providing remedies; whether, if the recommendations of the Committee are agreed to, it will be at the earliest in the year 1886 before any of the separate authorities will be in a position to commence works for intercepting the sewage passing into the Thames, and whether there is any assurance that even then their schemes will not be opposed in the future as they have been in the past; and, whether there are any steps which the House, or the Local Government Board, can take to give effect to the decision of Parliament 18 years ago, that the Thames should not be polluted by sewage passing into it in a crude condition above London?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I have had under my consideration the Report of the Select Committee on the scheme for the sewerage of the Lower Thames Valley, which was issued yesterday. I believe that it is a fact that the Committee came to their decision with regard to the division of the existing district, after hearing the evidence of two only out of the 11 constituent authorities, and without hearing any evidence whatever on the part of the other nine constituent authorities on the Main Sewe- rage Board on the subject. I do not wish to pronounce an opinion adverse to the Committee with regard to the particular scheme which they have thought it right to reject; but there can be no doubt that the decision of the Committee has the effect of precluding the Main Sewerage Board from carrying out a scheme which was unanimously adopted by that Board with a view to keeping unpurified sewage out of the Thames; and it is also true that the Committee have rejected an unopposed Order, which would have protected the Main Sewerage Board and the ratepayers from the penalties to which that Board will be liable under the Thames Conservancy Act, after September next, for the discharge of unpurified sewage into the Thames. I have some doubt whether the decision of the Committee on the latter point is a legal decision, and it will be a matter for consideration by the proper officials of the House whether the Committee had power to throw out the unopposed Order. The Main Sewerage Board was constituted by a Provisional Order, which was isued by the Board after local conferences and inquiries, and was subsequently confirmed by Parliament, after full consideration by a Select Committee. The grounds on which the Main Sewerage Board was constituted were the great difficulties which attended each separate Sanitary Authority making separate provision for the disposal of the sewage of their district, and the expectation that the sewage of the united areas could be more easily, more satisfactorily, and more economically dealt with by one authority than by the authorities acting separately. It is a fact that authorities of districts included in the joint district had, prior to the constitution of that district, failed, one after the other, in their efforts to provide proper schemes for the disposal of the sewage. As regards the recommendation of the Committee, that the district should be divided; that Heston and Isleworth should form one district; that Richmond and the Richmond Union Sanitary District should form another; that the southern portion should be formed into one or more groups, if the Main Sewerage Board were dissolved and new groups of areas were made, the earliest possible date at which any of the authorities could be in a position to commence works, unless suitable land for the works could be purchased by agreement, would be the year 1886. Not only have the Board no assurance that the schemes promoted by the separate authorities will not be opposed, but, according to the past experience of the Board, it would be hopeless to expect that the separate schemes would not meet with strong opposition. For the present, the decision of the Committee would appear to make it impracticable to prevent the pollution of the Thames by sewage passing into it in a crude condition.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

With regard to throwing out the unopposed Order, I wish to say that the Committee consulted the Authorities of the House, who informed them that the Committee had that power.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I express no opinion of my own upon the point. I only speak upon information which I received from certain Authorities who are connected with the Private Bill Legislation of the House.