HC Deb 26 March 1953 vol 513 cc957-66

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir H. Butcher.]

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Cleveland)

Under the interesting procedure of this House, in order to preserve my right to speak now, I was obliged to start my speech at three minutes to seven o'clock. I am sure that that was not only to my convenience but somewhat to the convenience of the borough of Ilford. However, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government could scarcely be expected to be present during my previous very short speech, I am sure that it will be to his advantage if I start from the beginning.

I am raising this evening a matter which is admittedly of primary constituency interest. It perhaps has no broad application, except in the sense that there are many districts in this country where the water supply arrangements, which were satisfactory 50 or even 30 years ago, are no longer satisfactory. That certainly is the case in the part of the Cleveland constituency with which I am dealing this evening. The area concerned is one which may or may not be known to the hon. Gentleman It is the extreme northern coastal area of the North Riding, an area which is of mixed industrial and agricultural composition, with the emphasis these days on industry.

I wish to admit that the physical conditions are difficult from a water supply point of view. It could hardly be denied that, geographically, the district is extremely hilly; I believe that there are some of the highest cliffs in the country along the coast. The area embraces several small towns and villages. There is the town of Loftus, the urban district of Skelton and Brotton, Carling How and Skinningrove—among others—names which I think indicate the Danish origin of the ancestors of the bulk of the population.

The statutory water supply authority is the Cleveland Water Company, and there are also several private water supplies of varying quantity, and also, unfortunately, of varying quality. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I have no desire to go out of my way to criticise the Cleveland Water Company; it is fair to say that today the directors and the management of this small company are struggling with a postwar situation which is rather beyond them. But I think it could also be said equally fairly that the company has always lacked capital resources and technical direction adequate to achieve its statutory obligations. It is true, certainly, that there have been complaints from the local authorities most concerned over a long period of time.

Forgetting the ancient history of the business, in 1944—and this will be in the records of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department—the local authorities in the company's area jointly sent a letter to the Ministry complaining of the unsatisfactory water service, and pointing out what would be the pressing post-war needs. The result was that consulting engineers were brought in, and reported in some detail on the resources of the water company. As an immediate consequence, very minor technical improvements were made.

Later, in 1946, a report was prepared, and this was the first major attempt to look ahead in the planning of water supplies of this district. The report was in favour of the construction of a large new reservoir—the reservoir which is described as the Scaling Dam scheme. Unfortunately, it has been the history of this business, and this is what troubles my constituents and the local authorities which represent them, that practical events still proceed at a tortoise-like pace.

Of course, there was the usual inquiry, there were the usual objectors; events moved very slowly indeed, and, by 1949, it will be found that on two occasions in that rather difficult year for water supplies generally the local authorities concerned were again in touch with the Ministry about the gravity of the water supply situation, pointing out that there were householders in considerable numbers who were carrying water from springs and open streams, with all the risk of pollution and danger to health and sanitation.

It was not until June, 1952, that consent was finally given to proceed with this Scaling Dam scheme which had first been drawn up six years before. The original cost in 1946 was £215,000. The estimated cost today has now advanced to about £450,000. This is a matter on which I should like the enlightenment which I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to provide. It has now been discovered that in order to find money for the scheme the company must raise capital on the open market. To do that they must further increase their water charges, which have already been advanced over the years.

My comment is that over a period there has been made talk by the water company, by the local authorities concerned and the Ministry about this scheme, which was to provide a solution, but apparently there has been little real thought about how the scheme should be financed. In any case, on the most optimistic estimate, it will be a year or so before the work is under way and it may easily be three or four years before the scheme is completed. Meantime, the local authorities, especially Loftus Urban District Council and the Skelton and Brotton Urban District Council, are faced with an increasingly critical situation.

At the meeting of the Loftus Urban District Council in January it was reported that completed council houses were standing empty because of the lack of water. Perhaps I could also quote from a report of the Skelton and Brotton Council, which is in the records of the hon. Gentleman's Department, and which says: The Council would also point out that they are at present engaged on a comprehensive housing programme of several hundred houses which will entail a continuing and considerably increased demand on the present water supply and they are almost afraid to contemplate the difficulties with regard to water which will arise in five years' time if the Scaling Dam Scheme is then still far from completion. That was reported to the Minister in 1951. These are not remote rural districts: they are often small but densely built areas. It is not unknown in these small towns for built-up areas to be without water for days at a time, even in winter. It would be penetrating as well to quote from the various reports of the local medical officer of health which I have in my possession, but time does not allow of that.

I make no party point in this matter. I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. Gentleman. There has been correspondence with the Minister and with his predecessor about temporary measures, but it is uncertain whether they will help very much. A booster pump is to be brought in. It is a matter of technical opinion, but I am not sure that that will help very much. Therefore, knowing the responsibilities of the Minister under the 1945 Act, I wish to address some questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I stress that I am making no party point. If it had been possible I should have put precisely the same questions to this Minister's predecessor.

Knowing that the only fundamental remedy for the water supply difficulty in this district is the completion of this Scaling Down scheme, what practical steps does the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend propose to take? He has authorised the scheme, but what steps does he propose to take to hasten the start and the completion of it? Is it possible for the company to be helped financially from public sources? When, because of public health considerations, the local authorities are from time to time compelled to carry water, is it right that the local ratepayers should have to foot the Bill when there is a statutory water company, obliged under the law to give a supply?

Is the Minister satisfied that the financial and technical resources of the Cleveland Water Company are adequate to meet their statutory obligations? I ask this after careful thought, and following talks on the subject with informed local people. Would the Minister consided using the powers given him under the 1945 Act to compel amalgamation and the formation of a larger and perhaps more successful authority? I would appreciate answers to those questions, which are of importance to the ordinary comfort and health of my constituents, and which are certainly matters of urgent administrative concern to the local authorities affected.

10.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples)

The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) said this subject was a constituency matter. On these Adjournment debates most of the speeches dealt with are constituency matters, as I have found from experience. He said he did not know whether the district was known to me. I know it intimately. During the war I was in that area. I spent some time with Messrs. Dorman Long in Middlesbrough and I went to Cleveland. The hon. Member did not make a political point at all, and for my part I also do not propose to make any party point. But I am going to a Cleveland garden fete in the summer in order to help the local Tories. I hope the hon. Member will come to the meeting because, with his open mind, it might be possible for me to convert him.

I should like to deal with the history of the Cleveland Water Company, which operates under its Acts of 1869 and 1899 and the subsequent Orders under the Water Act of 1945. It is true that the local authorities have been pressing the water company for an increased supply for many years. The long-term answer of the company, as distinct from short-term expediency, has been to get a larger reservoir known as the Scaling Dam scheme which was first submitted to my Department in 1946. The hon. Gentleman said they started in 1944, but it did not come to the Department until 1946.

In order to help the water supply in the district an Order was made in 1946 for the company to make a temporary abstraction of 300,000 gallons from—

Mr. Palmer

I said representations were first made by the local authority in 1944.

Mr. Marples

That is true, but I am saying it did not come to the Department until 1946. Representations were then made to the then Socialist Government, of which the hon. Member was a supporter, the company were given power to make a temporary abstraction of 300,000 gallons from the Sleddale Beck. That Order has been renewed annually.

Despite that, the company have been unable to maintain pressure in their main and areas on high level ground cannot be adequately supplied. In 1949, water carting had to be carried out extensively. It is true to say, however, that this was so in many parts of the country because of the exceptionally dry summer of that year. It was not peculiar to this district; it was general.

At a meeting in April, 1951, with officers of the Department, representatives of Skelton and Brotton Urban District Council, Saltburn and Marske Urban District Council and the borough of Redcar met representatives of the company. The deputation was led by Mr. O. G. Willey, the late Member for the Cleveland Division. It was made plain to the water company at that meeting that the initiative rested with them to prepare their scheme fully. An undertaking was given that the Department would not in any way delay the proposals if they were satisfactory. In fact a scheme was authorised in June, 1952.

It ought to be said quite clearly that the state of supply to the rural areas is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, but there are no special features known to us which really make this scheme more urgent than others. The question of supplies in rural areas is not a question whether a scheme is really needed in a particular area but whether there are other areas which are worse off. I can assure the hon. Member that there are many other rural districts in the country which are far worse off than that to which he has referred. It is a question of relativity. If some rural areas are worse than others then obviously it is the duty of the Department to concentrate on those first. There must be some order of priority.

The hon. Member mentioned that there is a new housing development in the area and he said that some new houses in Loftus could not be occupied because of an insufficient supply of water. He very kindly gave me advance notice of that point and I spoke to the regional officer on the telephone. I am informed that the chairman of Loftus Urban District Council Housing Committee said that there are no new houses in the area unoccupied because of lack of water. So there is a conflict of evidence here on a matter of fact. If the hon. Member would be kind enough to let me have the addresses of the houses which he had in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made straight away to see if we can have them occupied.

The hon. Member also said that Loftus Urban District Council can build in part of their area but not in Easington Parish until the water supply is much improved. That is true, but the council have still a sufficient number of houses to occupy the attention of their building force elsewhere. On the general question, the hon. Member said that the scheme was reviewed in June, 1952, and authorised at an estimated cost of £444,725.

Mr. Palmer

I said that Skelton and Brotton Urban District Council reported that their housing development was greatly held up.

Mr. Marples

Yes, I am coming to that council later. The hon. Member said that the cost of the scheme was about £450,000 in June, 1952. In fact is was authorised, as I have said, at an estimated cost of £444,725. The hon. Member said that in 1946 it was estimated to cost £215,000; but with his knowledge of engineering he will know that in 1946 the scheme was not in sufficient detail for any precise and accurate costing to be made. He knows that civil engineering schemes are all alike. Somebody gets out a rough sketch, but when people carry out soil tests and examine the mechanics of the soil they find that the scheme costs far more money. What is also troubling me in this case is that there is a difference between estimates and final costs in most large schemes. In civil engineering one enters the unknown and all sorts of things can happen underground.

Because of their inability to meet their financial obligations the company sought further borrowing powers and these were given in the Cleveland Water Company Order, November, 1952. The scheme was therefore held up pending the issue of that Order. It may be that they have delayed commencement of work because they want to make sure that revenue will provide a sufficient return on the capital. But every assistance has been given to the company in preparing the scheme and getting the necessary powers. If the company or the local authority or both agree to make representations my right hon. Friend's Department will take an interest in the negotiations and do all that they can to help them in borrowing money or in obtaining any technical assistance that they may need. They have said they can start work on the scheme on 1st April next, and the period for the contract is 36 months.

The hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. First, would we assist them with money; secondly, would we see whether there was sufficient technical advice, whether the firm were sufficiently strong in technicians to carry out the undertaking; and thirdly, could we hurry the period of the building? On the first question, I have assured him that we will do everything in our power to help, both in borrowing and in technical assistance.

Mr. Palmer

I did ask also about amalgamation with the more successful companies.

Mr. Marples

I will deal with that after I have dealt with these three questions.

His second question was whether they had sufficient technicians. I understood him to say that a firm of consulting civil engineers had prepared this scheme. If a professional firm of consulting civil engineers have prepared the scheme it is highly probable that the technical staff of the company itself will not be needed in the contract period. Very few water companies or local authorities have on their staffs engineers of the right technical ability, experience and calibre to carry out major works of this magnitude. Generally speaking, one must go to somebody who has spent his whole life in that class of work. The ordinary engineer, while he is good on ordinary maintenance matters, cannot carry out this type of work unless he has had the experience.

The third of this bunch of questions was whether we could hurry the period of construction. I can say that if there is anything we can do by providing materials and labour to help, it shall be done. But my experience of civil engineering work before I assumed my present office and had to resign from all my civil engineering connections was that marine works and works connected with water supplies cannot be hurried beyond a certain pace. Any marine work—tidal work, of course, is worst of all—can be proceeded with only at a certain rate owing to the difficulties of nature.

It is precisely the same with this scheme. It takes 11 months to complete a house, and this three-year contract— 36 months—does not seem unreasonable on the face of it. I will, however, look at the question again to see whether it could be speeded up. If the contractors tender has been acceptable to the water company—that is on the question of price, whether they have got technical staff and on the question of time—it is hardly likely at this stage that one could negotiate with them and ask them to reduce their period, because they would immediately ask for more money.

I doubt whether much can be done about their charging and the water rates at the moment, because the company's rates for domestic supply are at present below the average, and their charges for metered supplies are also below the average in the country. They have before us at the present time an application for increased domestic rates which would bring the existing rate up by 24 per cent. on the present rate, but that would still leave it below the average rate for domestic supplies. That application has not yet been decided and is really, in effect, sub judice, so I will not comment on it.

I can answer one other question, and that is: Who will pay for the cost of the water supplies when it is brought by rail and cart. The answer is, if they are brought within the 24 per cent. increase they will still be below the average in the country, so they are getting their normal water supplies so much below the rest of the country that I should have thought they would have a poor case in asking the rest of the country to shoulder that burden in a period of drought. Even with the 24 per cent. increase on their charge at the moment, they will still be below the average in the country, and I think it is a wee bit hard to ask the rest to pay for water brought in in time of drought.

The other question was on amalgamation. The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of that, and, quite frankly, I should like to consider, it, and perhaps write to him about it. I should have thought that if this scheme is started, and if we can press on with it, and get perhaps some agreement arrived at on the charges and the financial aspect, then the hon. Gentleman's rural district, about which he spoke tonight, would have all the water they want.

Mr. Palmer

It is an urban district.

Mr. Marples

It is a rural area and an urban district. They would still have the water. That is the best and speediest way of giving the hon. Gentleman's constituents what they desire and deserve.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Ten o'Clock.