§ 39. Mr. MELLERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inadequate provision made for the disposal of sewage in the districts of Mitcham, Beddington and Wallington, and Merton and Morden, inasmuch as the present works are only capable of dealing with a population of 80,000, whereas the population is now approximately 115,000 and is rapidly increasing, particularly in the district of Merton and Morden, which contains a part of the St. Heliers estate; that a scheme to enlarge the works has been under consideration by the Ministry since June last and is still awaiting sanction; can he give any reasons for the delay; and will he see that steps are immediately taken to safeguard the health of the districts affected?
§ Mr. GREENWOODI am aware of the need for improvement of the arrangements for disposing of the sewage of the districts in question, and I have under consideration a scheme for this purpose, the estimated cost of which is £174,000. In view, however, of the inquiry which is now proceeding into the whole question of sewerage and sewage disposal for the Greater London area, the present scheme must be regarded as part of a larger problem, and I am anxious that no expenditure on works at the present site should be incurred which can be avoided by the substitution of alterna- 3079 tive arrangements to those submitted. My decision is, therefore, being deferred pending the result of further investigations. I am not aware that there is danger to health, but the hon. Member can rest assured that there will not be any avoidable delay in dealing with this difficult problem.
§ Mr. MELLERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been under consideration since June last, that during that time the population has increased considerably, and that during the next few months we may expect to see the population rising considerably higher than it is now; and is he satisfied that the health of the public will be safeguarded by the postponement of this scheme until he can bring in a very much larger scheme than that which is contemplated by the local authority?
§ Mr. GREENWOODIt is not a question of a larger scheme; it is a case of protecting the local authority from spending nearly £200,000, which might be quite useless in a very short space of time, because there may be further development.
§ Mr. MELLERBut surely a space of nine months is sufficient time to consider the scheme!