HC Deb 21 March 1899 vol 68 cc1510-24

(By Order.) Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the Bill be now read a second time.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this day six months."—(Mr. Stuart.)

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I paused from rising for the moment in the hope that someone in charge of the Bill would give us the reasons for bringing it on just now, and the reasons also for the particular form of the Bill. I would point out that it affects a. million and a, half of money for impounding the waters of the Lea and supplying them to the inhabitants of London at some distant date when the construction of the reservoirs will be accomplished. It is not one of those Bills that supply the immediate and urgent necessities of London; that was dealt with by the Government, and this Bill does not touch that point. There are other Bills before us to-day that do, but this Bill does not touch what I may call the urgent question. There are some omissions in the Bill—for instance, the sinking fund is not introduced into the Bill. So far as I know, there is no Bill affecting the raising of capital for any London water company for many years that has passed this House without the introduction of a sinking fund, the object of that sinking fund being to make the public, the water consumers of London, and the ratepayers in some way sharers in the proceeds of the capital. There were two Bills of the East London Company—in 1894 and 1897 respectively—which two Bills provided reservoirs for impounding the water of the Lea precisely as this has done, and in both of those, though introduced, if I remember rightly, without a sinking fund clause, the Committee of the House of Commons, and the Committees, in fact, of both Houses, introduced and maintained a sinking fund clause. The companies have sometimes found fault with the London County Council for expending money in appearing upon their Bills, but surely an omission from a Bill like this necessitates the spending of money under any circumstances in connection with this Bill. I hoped and imagined that some explanation at least would have been given from the other side as to the omission of the sinking fund clause. Then there is another clause which has been recently introduced of late in this House, and which was really introduced as arising from the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in 1896. That clause is one which states that the concessions thus granted to the company shall not be taken to increase the value of that company's undertaking in case of purchase within a certain number of years. That clause is omitted from this Bill. I am told that that clause has been introduced into recent Bills which the companies have brought forward; I think it really was introduced to carry out a suggestion, not exactly in that form, but yet an imprimatur suggestion, made in 1896, by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. There are these two clauses omitted from the Bill, and I hoped, as I said, to have heard some explanation as to why they are omitted. Then there is another point in respect to this Bill which I wish to bring before the House. It is a Bill for the future water supply of London, and it is a Bill for gathering that supply from the river Lea, in connection with large reservoirs. Now, I venture to think that the Lea is not a satisfactory source from which to secure move water for London. It was only the other day that we had occasion to refer in this House to the constitution of the Conservancy Board of the river Lea, and largely because of the enormous draws of water from the Lea that there are at the present moment, and greater draws of water from the river Lea will have to be taken before we can serve the increasing needs of East London in the manner which this Bill indicates. It has been in evidence before the Royal Commission, in evidence given by Sir Alexander Binnie, Mr. Baldwin Latham, and others, that, in order to supply water adequately all the year round, you will require no less than 6,000 million gallons of storage for the water of the river Lea, and that even that apparently would be insufficient. Now, there has been a good deal said about the deficiency of last year being, as it was, certainly an abnormal one, but it is not nearly so abnormal as at first sight you would suppose. I hold in my hand one of the most recently issued Reports of the present Royal Commission—not Reports, but Notes of Evidence, of the present Royal Commission—and I see that the flow of the river Lea has been continuously diminishing. Here I have the flow given in millions of gallons over King's Weir for 20 years—at least, for 18 years—and in whatever way you group those years (I am merely quoting from the Paper placed before the Royal Commission) you find that the total flow of the river Lea has been very greatly diminished. If you compare the last five of those years with the first five of those years you find that the decrease in the flow of the Lea has been 15 per cent. There has been during that period a certain decrease of the rainfall, but it has only been 10 per cent., and the winter rainfall has hardly decreased at all.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

Will the honourable Gentleman say by whom the evidence was given?

MR. STUART

These tables were given by Mr. Baldwin Latham, who was the last witness examined. And there is another check upon that, that the springs—these natural springs from which the water is got—namely, the Chadwell Springs, have been decreasing in nearly the same ratio, so that the produce of those wells and of the river Lea is distinctly diminishing. Now, I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman who asked me the Question means to dispute the figures, but, whether or not, it is certainly undoubted that that is the main tenour of those figures, which I think he will admit to be true, and that is also clear from the fact that the New River Company, before the Committee on which I sat in 1896, were obliged to admit that, while a certain amount of water could be got from their wells, that amount was deficient now by 10 million gallons.

*SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANP (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

A day?

MR. STUART

Yes, a day. In other words, the whole evidence before Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee requires to be reconsidered, and, indeed, has been very much under reconsideration. But I point out that to show that this is a very doubtful source of supply from which to secure the future increase of the London water supply for six, eight, or ten years hence, as this Bill intends and purposes to do. You have the Lea river, with a large population on its hands, you have the sources of supply diminishing, and you have enormous reservoirs, and the extensions of those reservoirs. Now, I will venture to tell the House my opinion on this Bill in the manner that I have indicated. It is because the County Council, whom I have the honour of speaking for, and I, believe that a far better source of supply is to be found than in the Thames and the Lea, and that a far better source is to be found in going to Wales. I will not venture to anticipate any argument that I may raise at a later period this afternoon upon the Welsh Bill; but I will only say this: that you have in this East London Bill one of the proposed means of meeting the increase of supply necessary a number of years hence. I ask the House to remember that this is not an urgent question—it is a question of increasing the future supply. You have this Bill giving one means of meeting that—a means which, as I have ventured to show, is at least somewhat doubtful. On the other hand, you have the Welsh scheme of the County Council, and that is undoubtedly a pure supply and abundant in quantity. It will be for me to point that out at a later stage to-day. but the two Bills are brought in. one by the authority for the moment supplying water, and the other by the London County Council, which, under Sir Matthew White Ridley's Report of 1891, was instructed to make full inquiries into the condition of the London water supply, and to bring forward a Measure embodying what should be done. We bring forward this Measure, which we shall come to at a later stage, carrying out our duty as an authority so constituted. But what I want to point out is this, that, while I shall move that this East London Water Bill be read this day six months before I sit down, in order to obtain from the honourable Gentlemen opposite some light upon their position, and some answer to the question I am going to put, I am not appearing here as opposing this Bill on Second Reading, because I want to have a competent Committee upstairs to consider not only this, but all the opportunities of getting water for London. It may be said that the Welsh scheme is in the air, but I want to point out (and I will not allude to the Welsh Bill except in relation to this Bill that I am now really dealing with) that the two things are perfectly on the same footing. The East London Company asks to bring water here in this way, and it will have to hand over that water to the future water authority for London. On behalf of the London County Council, we take the same attitude about the Welsh Bill; and what we are anxious to secure is the opportunity of obtaining for London a better supply of water. I want to ask the honourable Gentlemen opposite, Are they going to stand in the way of this Committee considering all the means of London getting water? Are they going to prevent this Committee considering not only their own scheme, but also considering the Welsh scheme? There are two separate means of getting water for the future supply of the East End and for any part of London, and they are not compatible with one another, so that we shall prejudge the whole question if we decide on one of these means before they go to a Committee. It would be perfectly different if the two Bills were not now before the House. The two Bills are before the House, and neither of them need to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. And the reason neither of them need wait for the Report of the Royal Commission is this: the Royal Commission has not been asked to report on this question. It is not in its reference to report on the place from which the future supply of water is to be got. It is true that it has taken incidentally, in order to see the cost, a considerable amount of evidence upon that matter, and that evidence can now be placed before the Committee to which these Bills are referred. I think that Commission's evidence is complete; and I for one shall have no objection that the evidence before that Commission should go before the Committee to which both these Bills should be referred. I therefore must make an appeal to honourable Gentlemen opposite to act by me as I am endeavouring to act by them, and to say: Let us send these two Bills—without any committal of approval on either part—to a Committee, let us place them before the Committee, and let us be able to place the whole facts of the case before the Committee, which we are quite capable of doing. This has nothing to do with the question of purchase, or who should be the future water authority for London. Are they going to say that they are going to stand by only one method of solution to the future water supply when there are two before the House? With these remarks I move that the Bill be read this day six months.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I beg to second the Amendment.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

I have no intention of not answering the remarks as to the object of the Bill. As to the future supply of water to London from Wales, I must decline to enter into a discussion. The object of the Bill is a very simple one. It is true that it concerns a. very large sum of money: but, what is more important, I believe it will place the company of which I am chairman in a position to provide the East End of London with water even during a drought. The object of the Bill, really and shortly, is to provide the company against falling short in future if a recurrence of drought should take place. In order to provide for that object we are asking leave to acquire land upon which to construct two large reservoirs, with the incidental works. These are to complete an instalment of the water scheme of reservoirs laid before Lord Balfour's Commission, and authorised in 1894 and 1897, and, but for the exceptional drought of 1898, I am bound to believe there would not have been any urgency for these reservoirs: but, in view of what we suffered last year, I maintain that this Bill is absolutely urgent and necessary, and I press for its Second Heading in order that it may go before a Committer These two reservoirs will hold 5,000 millions of gallons of water—additional storage capacity—and will cover an area of 462 and 384 acres respectively, and these reservoirs and kindred works will cost us about one million of money. The company also ask power to create debenture stock for l½ millions. Our engineer maintains that the erection of these reservoirs is absolutely necessary, and but for that we should not have wished to create that large amount of additional stock. We believe, however, that the scheme cannot be postponed; and we also say that it has been sanctioned by a Royal Commission. To wait until the water question is finally settled would be to expose the East End of London to the dangers of another drought. My opponents find fault that we have failed in the past, and yet when these Bills are introduced to provide against these failures in the future, they proceed to oppose them. The honourable Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) stated his case the other night, making several strong points against the East London Company. I was unable to answer him at the time, but the main point which I now wish to keep to is the urgency of the Bill. If the House rejects the Second Reading, it must take the responsibility, and if any future scarcity of water does arise which might have been remedied by the passing of this Bill, on the House must rest the responsibility, and not on me. With regard to the quality of the River Lea, I may assure the honourable Member that the vintage of 1898 was magnificent, and that the water of the East London Company left nothing to be desired, and it came next to the standard of the New River Company, which I confess is high. That being the case, I ask the honourable Member if he is placing the London County Council in a good position, even from his point of view? I was perfectly aware when I took over the chairmanship of this company that my position would not be a bed of roses; but I may assure the House that my one object, in conjunction with my Board and ad- visers, is to prevent any recurrence of past troubles. We believe by these Measures which we now place before the House, that scarcity of water will in the future be prevented. We believe that the wells of the Lea are increasing, and did commence to increase, oddly enough, immediately after the drought. I acknowledge with gratitude the fair way in which the honourable Member placed his views before the Committee. Without doubt, should the House reject the Bill, it will mean a very serious thing indeed for the East End. It will shift the responsibility from my shoulders and place it on those who oppose the Measure.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

The Bill has. been urged forward in consequence of last year's experience—

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

I said it was an instalment of the system of reservoirs.

MR. PICKERSGILL

The honourable and gallant Member said the Bill was brought forward in consequence of last year's experiences, and that it was intended to provide against similar failure in the future to that which East London suffered from last year. The single point I rise to make is this—the honourable and gallant Member says that if the company is provided with these new reservoirs they will be able to store water to meet such an emergency as arose last year. But, as a matter of fact, if the company had had not these reservoirs alone, but any amount of storage accommodation last year, they would not have met the deficiency. If they had had every particle of water that flowed over the Teddington Weir, they would still have been short of their supply by 2,000 million gallons. Under these circumstances, the very basis upon which the honourable and gallant Gentleman rested this Bill seems to fall to the ground. I quite admit that this is a proper matter for the Committee to consider. The honourable and gallant Member has even no reply to the Question of the honourable Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart), and we have a right to ask that if the Second Reading of this Bill is assented to, honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House shall agree that the London County Council Bill, which also provides an alternative method of supplying water for London, shall be referred to the Committee, too.

MR. SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)

I have heard the honourable and gallant Member's reference to the proposed increased storage, and I trust the hopes he has expressed will be realised to the utmost. I must, however, point out that the mains of the East London Water Company are scarcely fitted to carry the supply through a thickly populated district. In East Ham, at any rate, it is essential that the mains should be good. In a case where the population has increased from 5,000 to 80,000 the same mains cannot be expected to do service. There are other points in the Bill that I take exception to. It was said that, in a great measure, the famine which occurred and the depression which occurred was due to the fact that the consumers had done away with their cisterns. That is not quite the fact. The cisterns had to be done away with because the local authorities insisted on their being done away with. And although it has been urged by the Board of Trade that new cisterns could be introduced, and that they would not be detrimental to the consumers, yet I would say that the expenditure of buying these cisterns would fall in a large measure upon a class of people who could not afford to pay for them. Then, I think if these jars supplied by the East London Water Company had not been supplied it might have been better for the consumers at large. Now, there is another matter which I think the House should take cognisance of. At Leyton, I believe, the authorities there manage the whole of their sewage evaporation of every drop of water consumed, and it appears that in normal times the amount of water they evaporate is 2,800,000 gallons per day. During the drought they only evaporated about 900,000 gallons a day, which shows that about one-third of the normal amount was evaporated. Taking the amount which it is supposed the consumer requires at 24 gallons per head per day, it would show that the consumer in this instance only had eight gallons per day, and that they lived on that small total amount. If you deduct the amount consumed for manufacturing purposes, you will find that the eight gallons per day was very much diminished; consequently the eight gallons cannot be held to be an adequate supply in the East London districts. Now, there is another remark I have to make —I do not want to weary the House on this matter, but what I wish to press upon the House is that the East London Water Company at the present moment have bad mains, and that they are not remedied by this Bill. Now, Sir, I wish to point out also a remark which took place at the meeting of the East London Water Company, in which it was said that a large amount of water was wasted by the consumers. The words the chairman was supposed to have used were these— That there is ample proof of a great deal of the quantity supplied to the consumer during the shortened hours was wasted partly by the tenants' neglect, and partly from a desire to serve out the company. If the company had to resort to such an excuse, it only showed how bad their case must be. But if that is so, I see nothing in the Government Bill by which the people who waste the water in times of drought could be prosecuted. I think anybody watering their gardens, or wilfully leaving their taps on, and so forth, in times of drought, should by some means or other be punished for their careless action. In conclusion, all I have to say is that I in no way desire to see the London County Council, or any other body, take up this enterprise. I think it is absolutely obligatory on this House to say that concessions granted should be maintained to the advantage of the public. Lastly, I think it is a question of supply to the public of an adequate quantity of water first, and that the payment of dividends should be the last consideration; and that if the dividend paid by the East London Water Company had been lessened and the sum devoted to supplying these cisterns, which they think necessary, instead of to supplying jars, which were utterly useless to the conumers at large, the poorer classes would have been the better off.

MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the position as we regard it from this side of the House. I think my honourable Friend the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood) has entirely misunderstood the view taken by my honourable Friend sitting behind me. We do not intend to divide against the Second Reading of this Bill, because I recognise that it is very likely that this expenditure by the East London Water Company may be necessary in order to prevent further water famines. The honourable Gentleman said there was no question of urgency; therefore there was no question of the Bill at the present time. I think he has forgotten the Bill introduced by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, which was intended to provide against any likelihood of urgency during the next few years. If my honourable Friend will read the evidence before the Royal Commission, of Mr. Brian, the engineer to the East London Water Company, he will find that ho admitted that this system of connection would enable them to carry on without any fear of water famine, for, at all events, two or three years to come. Therefore, there is no immediate urgency in regard to this House. I fully recognise that it may be right and proper these proposals should be passed in order that they may be in a position to provide for their customers in future years. What we want to impress upon the House is this: as my honourable Friend behind me pointed out to the House, we have before us two alternative proposals for the supply of water—

SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS

We have no alternative proposals.

MR. BUXTON

There are at the present moment before the House two or three Bills dealing with the London water supply, and they are dealing with the question of the future supply. The point of view we take in regard to this matter is that we do not desire to stand in the way of any proposal made by which we may have an increased and improved supply of water. We contend that these proposals made by a responsible body like the London County Council, as well as those made by the water companies, ought to go before the same Committee, so that the question may be dealt with, not piecemeal, but as a whole. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has himself declined to accept proposals in regard to the water question, because he said it prejudiced action subsequently to be taken by the Government when the Royal Commission reported. The Bill involves an expenditure of 1½ millions, but the other Bills, with an expenditure of 4½ millions, did prejudice the question of the future water supply. But, while we do not desire to commit the House at this stage to any definite approval of the system of bringing an alternative supply from Wales rather than from the Lea and the Thames, we do think that if the future is to be prejudiced by this large expenditure on the part of the East London Company, the alternative scheme ought to be placed in the hands of the same Committee. What I want to ask the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is, whether he really intends to take up this position, that, while he will do nothing himself or allow the County Council to do something, he will allow the water companies to prejudice the question of future supply. That is the position which my honourable Friend the Member for Epping (Colonel Lockwood) takes up. I do not wish to prejudice the case or to enter into any inconvenient matter by saying anything in derogation of the East London Water Company. We are quite prepared to allow the company to go to an expenditure to put their mains in a proper condition with a view-to, if possible, prevent future water famines. I think everybody admits that some increase in the supply will be necessary before long, and the only alternative is our taking the water from the Lea and the Thames, or going to Wales. It is on that point that I would appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for justice in the consideration of these Bills.

MR. H. S. SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

Mr. Speaker, I must confess to very much surprise at the changed attitude of honourable Members opposite on this question since the Debates in 1803 and 1894. It seems to me that the East London Members are far more concerned, if I may say so, with the immediate supply of water in the East of London rather than in the future supply. I disagree in. this case, therefore, with the honourable Member for Poplar. I must confess it is a difficult matter for me to vote for this Bill, though I intend to do so, for the simple reason I think we East London Members have some grave accusations to make against the East London Mater Company. I cannot help thinking that if the company charge the consumers large sums of money for the water they do not receive I am entitled to bring that accusation against them. On the other hand, we have considered what axe the absolute needs of East London. In 1893 and 1894 honourable Members took upon themselves the responsibility of depriving us of a water inquiry. I notice they are not so ready to do so now. No East London man dare, considering the interest of his constituency, go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill. An honourable Member has told us that it is absolutely necessary for the supply of water to the East of London that the company should have power to construct these reservoirs. With all due deference to the honourable Gentleman, I think the chairman of the company has greater knowledge of the needs and the water necessities of the company than honourable Gentlemen who have addressed this House this afternoon. I prefer to get the bird in hand offered to us by the East London Water Company rather than the birds in the bush offered to us by the London County Council Hill. Therefore, in the interests of East London, I shall register my vote in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,) Lincolnshire, Sleaford

I am very glad indeed to hear from honourable Members on that side of the House that they do not propose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. After the experiences of 189G and 1894 they would be talking a very grave responsibility upon themselves had they elected to adopt that course. I have been asked, while I am considering this Bill, not to forget the Bill for bringing water from Wales, which we are to discuss directly, and the honourable Members hold, I understand, that that Bill will in no wise prejudice any of the questions affecting the future water supply of London. My position is this, that I am waiting, and I shall listen with the greatest interest to what honourable Members have to say with regard to the Welsh Bill. But, pending that, I must reserve my opinion with regard to this Bill now before the House, and which itself also may prejudice the future of these questions quite as much as the Bill for bringing water from Wales. I am asked to put before the House some information bearing directly upon the question, and which is of great interest. My honourable Friend the honourable Baronet the Member for Gloucestershire (Sir John Edward Dorington), who is also a member of the Royal Commission, sitting this afternoon, asked me to say on his behalf, as expressing the opinion of the Commission—as he was unable to say it himself—that they have considered this Bill which we are discussing at this moment, and they are of opinion that that Bill and its provisions, being indeed as a matter of security for the water supply of the inhabitants, would not in their judgment or opinion prejudice in any way questions before the Commission. I thought it only right that I should say so. I am very glad that honourable Members are not going to oppose the Second Beading.

MR. BICKERSTETH HUDSON (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)

I can only say that, as a matter of fact, the stream which in my boyhood was full of water dries up more and more, and we wish to try and impress upon the Committee upstairs that they should not allow further wells to be sunk; if they do, we shall be absolutely dry of water in Hertfordshire.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill read a second time.

Motion made and Question proposed— That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the East London Water Bill is referred, having regard to the Resolution of this House of 12th March 1896, they do insert such provisions in the Bill as will insure the acquisition by the local authority of a suitable area of open space in substitution for the common rights proposed to be extinguished under the Rill, the extent and situation of such area of open space to be determined by the Committee."—(Mr. Paulton.)

*MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)

In moving the Instruction which stands in my name, I think I need only say that it is identical with the Instruction which I moved, and which was accepted unanimously, in February 1897, on a similar Bill by the East London Water Company. The object is simply this, to maintain what is now, happily, the settled policy of Parliament with regard to open spaces, and provide that where a public company takes land over which common rights exist, they should give a suitable area of open space to the local authority in substitution. This, I am glad to say, is accepted by the promoters, and I desire to express my satisfaction at the fair and open way they have met my views. I therefore beg to move.

Motion agreed to.