§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He said it was an attempt on the part of me of the water companies to take water from the Dorney fields. Although it was apparently promoted by what was mown as a country company, it was in reality a child of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, which was trying to secure possession of water of importance to the Thames. The promoters said that if they were allowed to take the water now they would not deprive Buckinghamshire of anything which belonged to it. But Buckinghamshire did not seem to be at all anxious that the company should be allowed to take the water in any shape or form, and it was worthy of note that the county councils of both Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire, and almost every local authority in those counties, were opposed to the Bill. This was really an attempt to occupy ground by means of a little innocent Bill, so that at some future time the water might be given to London, It was the old story of trying to denude the Thames of its water in a way which was most deleterious to the public interest. He failed entirely to see what difference there was between drawing water out of the Thames and abstracting it from near the banks of the Thames just before it flowed into the river. If the Bill were passed the water would be carried away to districts which had no connection whatever with the place from 1125 which it was obtained. For many years the question of the water supply of London had been before the House, and he believed it was admitted on all sides that the limit of water to be taken from the Thames, except such as could be obtained by storage at the proper time, had been absolutely reached. It had been estimated that the amount of water which now passed over Teddington Weir on the driest day was only 43 million gallons, and it was considered that the lowest amount necessary in the interests of the safety of navigation was 200 million gallons daily. The quantity which would be withdrawn from the Dorney fields under this Bill was more than 43 million gallons daily, and consequently, if the measure were passed, there might come a day in the year when no water whatever would pass over Teddington Weir. This was a very serious matter. It was found most difficult already to keep a proper head of water in the reach of the Thames between Boveney and Windsor during the dry seasons. Since this matter had been brought forward he had had an opportunity of referring to a report drawn up at the time when the Windsor Castle drainage was remodelled. That was in 1863. The engineers then found that in the Windsor Home Park the Thames itself was flowing through a gravel bed at the rate of half a mile per day for a width of nearly one mile. The Dean and Chapter of Windsor Castle, finding that some of the foundations of the chapel had lately given way, asked for a report from their surveyor, and he warned them that if that large body of water were withdrawn it might have very dangerous effects on the foundations of the Chapel, and the Windsor water supply might also be interfered with. He felt that the time had come when Parliament should say that until a Water Bill had been brought in by Government no more water should be abstracted from the Thames for the benefit of districts which had no right whatever to it. He hoped that Parliament would refuse to allow this great watershed to be depleted, seeing that the consequences might be most injurious, not only to Windsor, but also to London. It was admitted by the promoters themselves that they did not want this water at the present moment. They were only seeking to secure it for 1126 use a few years hence, and, under these circumstances, he appealed to the House not to read the Bill a second time.
§ MAJOR GRENFELL (Buckinghamshire, Wycombe), in seconding the Amendment, said he thought he could show to the House good reasons for voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. Parliament ought to be very careful before giving anyone power to take water out of a district by pumping. It seemed to him that the proper way of supplying an area with water was by means of storage. It was quite possible that in future the county councils of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, and Middlesex might combine together in some great storage scheme. It was impossible to over-estimate the damage that was done to areas by the abstraction of water from the ground. Moisture was withdrawn from the ground, and the loss to the farmer could not be gauged. One ground of opposition to this Bill was that it would be utilised to enable the South-wark and Vauxhall Company to supply a suburb of London with water in an underhand way. He had for many years been well acquainted with the Thames from Oxford to Putney. Those who watched the river carefully were well aware that it depended upon a large body of underground water, which to all intents and purposes was the Thames itself. This Bill took powers to sink wells and to put in pumping machinery in the very area through which that underground water was flowing, and the promoters would secure a large volume of water without paying one penny towards the cost of the upkeep of the upper part of the river. This water would be used in order to make profit for the promoters. The Bill was opposed by every county council and every local authority in the area which was affected by it—the area which was to be robbed of its water for private trading purposes, in order that a suburban district many miles distant might be served. There was another strong reason for opposing the Bill. There was no provision whereby local authorities could acquire the power to supply water to their own localities, and if the Bill were passed those local authorities would be bound hand and foot to a private trading, water-robbing 1127 company. He saw in the Bill a proposal for the acquisition of the Slough waterworks, but it so happened that the Urban District Council at Slough had unanimously passed a resolution against the Bill, as they entertained hopes of acquiring the waterworks for themselves. The Buckinghamshire County Council also opposed the Bill. They objected to water being taken out of what was admittedly a dry soil in order to supply distant districts. The soil of Buckinghamshire was a thirsty soil. The rainfall over the area was small, and if a private company were allowed to come in and take away water without control it might do the greatest possible harm to the various industries of the district. In the county of Hertfordshire steam pumps had been put in for the purpose of supplying water to London, and the result had been to seriously lower the water of the river there. He wished them to take warning by the example, and he implored the House not to sanction any scheme which would take away water from the river in the county of Buckinghamshire. The scheme was one of spoliation and robbery, and inasmuch as all the local bodies were strongly opposed to the principle of the Bill he hoped that the House would at once throw out a measure the carrying of which would deprive a large area of its water for the purpose of supplying districts at a great distance and putting money into the pockets of private traders.
§
Amendment proposed—
To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland.)
§ Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)said he had no personal interest in the Bill, but he did not think it deserved to be described as a scheme of spoliation and robbery. It was a very harmless Bill, after all. Its objects were to authorise an existing company to lay two lines of pipes to outlying districts where the company already had powers to supply water under an Act passed last year, and they also asked powers to extend their limits of supply to various parishes 1128 which had at present no system of water supply. He did not think that there could be any question that there were parts of Buckinghamshire which were in need of a water supply, which the company was prepared to give by establishing high-level reservoirs, to which they could pump from the present wells. All the objections to a Bill of this kind ought really to be urged before a Committee upstairs, and the House was obviously not in a position to determine the questions which had been raised by his hon. friend. The Committee could investigate them, and would have evidence before it as to whether there was a desire on the part of the inhabitants of the districts concerned to have a system of water supply. The question of taking water out of the county of Buckinghamshire was obviously one for a Committee. It was impossible to draw a hard and fast line, and to say that the boundaries of counties should separate the sources of supply, and that on the Hertfordshire side only Hertfordshire water should be used, and on the Buckinghamshire side only Buckinghamshire water should be used. A reasonable latitude should be allowed in matters of that kind, and it was impossible to fix an absolute distinction. Many provincial towns went far afield for their water, and it was well known that the London County Council sought its source of supply in Wales. There would be no difficulty in introducing upstairs substantial limitations which would prevent injury to any town, and he was quite sure the promoters would assent. In the Bill of 1900 the promoters vied with the Hertfordshire County Council in introducing a restrictive clause limiting the quantity of water to be taken from the valley of the Colne for consumption outside, and similar protection could very easily be afforded in the present Bill. He hoped the House would seriously consider whether it should decide a question of this kind without having evidence before it. A suggestion was made by his hon. friend that there was something behind the Bill, and it was stated that there was a close connection between the promoters of the Bill and one of the London Water companies, which naturally created apprehension, but such apprehension was not 1129 well founded. The London water companies were not so selfish as to say that every drop of water in the watershed of the Thames should necessarily go into the Thames. It was an enormous area, and it was ridiculous to say that every drop of water in it should go into the Thames and that none of it should be used by the inhabitants of the surrounding districts. It would be a pity to reject the Bill on the Second Reading, and he hoped that the usual course would be taken in the case of a small Bill of this kind, and that it would be sent to a Committee.
§ *MR. MELLOR (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)said that with his experience as Chairman of Committee he would, in nineteen cases out of twenty, advise the House to send a Bill of that kind to a Committee, but there were cases where the principle of the Bill was vicious and where no compensation could be given for the injury which might result, in which the House might well depart from that course. He was afraid he must say, in spite of the ingenious appeal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that this was a Bill of that character, and unless the rights of poor people who had wells in the districts concerned were protected he thought the House might well refuse to give the Bill Second Reading. No compensation could be given for the abstraction of water. If a man had a well on his land, and the water were taken away, the land might become valueless, and he could not be compensated in money. Every local authority in the districts concerned was against the present Bill, and had asked the county councils to oppose it, so that the House might know what was the real truth in regard to it. He hoped the House would not be led away by the plausible argument of supplying other districts with water, because they had no right to take away water from one district in order to supply another district. When he was on the Royal Commission on the Water Supply of London nothing struck him more than the manner in which the Thames Conservancy had succeeded in keeping the water in the river pure. What was their position in regard to the present Bill? The Chairman of the Thames Conservancy had moved its 1130 rejection, not in his individual capacity but as the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy. He believed that the people of London owed the Thames Conservancy a great debt of gratitude for the admirable manner in which they had discharged their duty; the Thames Conservancy now said that the Bill before the House was an attempt to divert water from the Thames which ought to be kept in it. When he was Chairman of the Unopposed Bills Committee a water Bill was before them. Fortunately, the Member for the district concerned was on the Committee, and he pointed out that the effect of the Bill would be to take away water from a number of poor cottagers who could not protect themselves, and the Bill was adjourned in order that the Committee could satisfy themselves that that would not be done. He hoped the House would listen to the voice of the local authorities and the Thames Conservancy, and reject the Bill.
§ MR. HUDSON (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)said that there were three parishes in Hertfordshire mentioned in the Bill, and while they did not object to wells being sunk to supply the inhabitants, they strongly objected to water being supplied to other companies, especially a London water company. It was quite certain that if the Bill were passed a quantity of water would be diverted from Hertfordshire to Buckinghamshire. In the Bill of 1900 it was provided that only 300,000 gallons should be drawn per diem, except in case of emergency, but if the present Bill were carried there might be an emergency every day. The local authorities were opposed to the Bill, and he earnestly hoped the House would reject it.
§ MR. CARLILE (Buckinghamshire, N.)said he would not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that he had been specially requested by the Buckinghamshire County Council to urge the House to oppose this Bill. He considered that it would be a most improper thing for this company to seize a commodity which was of such great value to the county of Buckinghamshire, and he hoped that the House would listen to the appeal, which was not only made by that county, but also by Middlesex and Hertfordshire and other counties.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said the only personal interest which he had in the matter was that, being a keen fisherman, he objected to these water companies destroying all the fish as they did. From the London point of view, however, this matter was of considerable importance. He thought the time had come when the demands of the small water companies should be dealt with by a large general scheme. With regard to London itself, the question was going to be dealt with, and he hoped decisively, in the next session; but beyond that he considered it was necessary also to consider the whole water supply of the country and how far it could be derived from the Thames. If these small companies were allowed to take water from the Thames and its sources, it must necessarily be very detrimental to London as a whole, and he should, therefore, vote against the Bill. He should vote against it not only on that ground, but also on the ground that this company was in the hands of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company. The last time that this question was raised it was raised openly by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, and now it was raised on behalf of the same company in a very insidious way. As a matter of fact, it was not the desire of the company to supply the villages in the district over which it was proposed to acquire powers; what they wanted to obtain was a new area, and in time it would be discovered that they had amalgamated with the Southwark and Vauxhall Company.
§ MR. ROTHSCHILD (Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury)said he wished to draw attention to one objection which had not been mentioned, and that was that the district bordering the area claimed by the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Water Company under this Bill was supplied by underground reservoirs in the chalk; and while the company had promised only to obtain the water which was in the area itself, by sinking wells and pumping they would take away the water from the surrounding country and cause a dearth of water in the neighbouring area. He should oppose the Bill.
§ Question put, and negatived; words added.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Second Beading put off for six months.