HC Deb 21 December 1955 vol 547 cc2111-22

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford)

First, I should like to congratulate the Minister who is to reply to the debate. I do not think that anybody will have any doubt that he deserves his promotion. I am particularly pleased that he is still in his old office for the moment so that he can answer the debate on a subject about which he knows quite a lot. The hon. Gentleman has a high respect for back benchers and their Adjournment debates and does not mind being detained late in the day.

I have a unique distinction in that this is the third year in succession that I have had the last of the Adjournment debates. I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of wishing yourself and Mr. Speaker, and all the officials and police officers connected with the House, and the Minister, a merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year.

The subject I wish to raise does not conform with the spirit of the festive season. Its title is "The Stench from the River Thames" but I make no apology for raising it, because it is a matter of paramount importance to tens of thousands of people, not only in my constituency but in neighbouring constituencies on Thames-side.

It was with some interest that we read a report in the Star of 15th December, which read: Mr. Justice Danckwerts, in the Chancery Division today, threatened to send to prison the 32 members of Sevenoaks Rural District Council unless they showed greater effort in carrying out a scheme for preventing pollution of the River Eden, at Edenbridge. When comparison is made of the pollution of the River Thames as against that of the River Eden, many of us shudder to think what would happen to the county councillors of London if justice were done.

I have some first-hand experience of this matter. On August Bank Holiday Monday, I was a guest of the Erith Regatta and was on the Thames for most of the day. For three or four days following I still had a headache from the stench, and I had a sore throat for a considerable time. From very close to the water, I saw that at times during the day it was not like water, but was flowing like black treacle. People who live in the locality—men of 40 years of age—recall how they used to enjoy swimming in the river in their boyhood. The change that has taken place is disastrous for people in the locality.

I know that there have been many meetings about this question and much correspondence, but, despite all that has been said and written, there is in my constituency a feeling that the matter is not treated as seriously as it should be. It is only in recent weeks that a very law-abiding citizen, a butcher, who has never done anything like this before—Mr. Tommy Clayton, of Belvedere—felt so deeply about it that he and several other butchers set about organising a petition—it is quite a substantial petition—of complaint about the nuisance.

In recent weeks, the Erith and District Trades Council has also had a petition against this nuisance, and it contains several thousand names. I hope, therefore, that when I am speaking tonight it is with the support—in an apathetic age, the amazing support—of constituents who feel that everything that might be done has not been done. Erith Trades Council feels so deeply about it that it has set up a vigilance committee with a view to keeping a very close watch on what happens in the future and also with the object of reducing as much as possible the time the nuisance may continue.

It is rather revealing that exactly a hundred years ago there was an inquiry into the matter of London's sewers and of what comes out of sewers, and I have the evidence on that matter of a Mr. Bazalgette, who was later knighted. On 25th July, 1855, he gave evidence to a special Committee appointed by the First Commissioner of Works to consider the proposals of the Metropolitan Board of Works for the main drainage of the Metropolis, and this is an extract from what he said: The deleterious effects of the sewage deposited on the pavements, as shown in the case of the silversmiths' shops in Regent Street, the sulphuretted hydrogen and ammonia from the road, refuse and exhalations arising in consequence, did considerable damage to the silver with which they came into contact. It is even worse today, one hundred years later, for in my constituency it is almost impossible to keep clean articles of copper or silver or brass. The speed with which they tarnish is amazing. A local resident, a man in a very high position, watched a fireman cleaning one of the fire engines at Erith, and he said that he started to clean the front and worked round to the back of the fire engine, and that by the time he got to the back, the front had already become tarnished again. His testimony is that, "You could see the metal work turning dull within a few seconds." The evidence of the fireman who attempted to clean the fire engine would have been very substantial evidence in support of my case, but I am informed that the language he used was unparliamentary, so I cannot repeat it here.

In July and August Her Majesty's telegraph ship "Monarch," the largest cable-laying ship in the world, lay at the Ocean Cable Works at Erith to load cable. It was found necessary to work the crew overtime to keep the metal parts of the ship clean. To the seamen, many of whom had had world-wide experience, the speed with which the metal parts tarnished after having been cleaned was amazing.

It is not only metal work that suffers. The polluted atmosphere has a disastrous effect on paint work, especially cream coloured and other light coloured paint work. Shortly after it has been newly painted the paint has a characteristic purplish black tint. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to visualise that it is a horrible and sickening sight.

Because of damage to paint work the Erith Yacht Club has moved its larger boats away from Erith. That is because of the heavy expense of frequent repainting and the hard work of keeping the metal parts clean, hard work which is soon made vain by the polluted atmosphere. People find that it destroys the pleasure they have in owning the boats. But housewives cannot move their houses. They have to suffer this misery.

I well remember how, during last summer, which was a glorious summer, the stench was, in consequence, all the more intense. I know of one family who came to Erith from Rochdale for a holiday and had to return home because they found that the stench in August was absolutely intolerable. Erith Borough Council has spent a good deal of money in developing the riverside. It is a pleasant place where the local inhabitants should be able to sit and watch the river traffic go by, a place where bands play, where a big hotel is being built and gardens are provided in which people can obtain liquid refreshment. But this terrible nuisance destroys the aim of the local council in making the locality a place of pleasure for the inhabitants.

I should like to read a letter from a Mrs. Michell, who lives in the district: Dear Mr. Dodds, Further to our meeting of Friday last, regarding river pollution (or as I would put it, the filthy stench from the River Thames), I would urge you to do all in your power to combat this vile menace. As a housewife and an industrial worker, I can speak with authority of the damage which emanates from this source. Speaking from an industrial point of view, copper wire discolours within one hour of cleaning, and, domestically speaking, all porcelain articles, paint work and metal ware take weeks to get clean and very often are ruined in the process. The point I want to stress is—as these things are being contaminated, what injurious effects can this have on human and animal life? I am not putting forward that it is injurious to life. I am saying that it can be a misery, particularly during fine weather, to those people who live within reasonable distance of the Thames.

I am indebted to London County Council for the booklet, Centenary of London's Main Drainage, 1855 to 1955, which states that conditions grew so intolerable that the Government decided to set up a new authority in 1855, the Metropolitan Board of Works, which was charged with the primary duty of maintaining the main sewers and constructing work to prevent sewage entering the Thames within the London area. The engineer of the Board, Joseph Bazalgette submitted his plans, which were adopted by the Board, for preventing sewage from flowing into the Thames in or near the Metropolis. In a subsequent Act of Parliament, in 1855, it was provided that the sewage of the Metropolis should be prevented …as far as may be practicable… from passing into the river within the Metropolis.

In Bazalgette's scheme the flow of all the sewers of London was to be carried to outfall sewers which, in turn, would discharge it into the river below the County of London, on the north side at Barking, 11 miles from London Bridge, and on the south side at the Crossness outfall in Erith, 13 miles below London Bridge. There are altogether 100 miles of sewers and the result of the scheme is that Erith is in a particularly difficult situation in which it seems to have the "benefit" of the whole of the' outfall of Greater London.

I know that devices have since been employed to minimise the nuisance. Nevertheless, it is the plea of local people that the nuisance is greater now than it has ever been in living memory. They also feel that whatever plans there may be for the future, those plans are not going forward quickly enough.

There is reference in the L.C.C.'s booklet to the southern outfall works at Crossness, in the Erith constituency. It states that, having regard to the Government's investment programme, Government approval to extensions of the southern outfall works was given on the understanding that the work would be deferred until the period 1958–62. It adds that this restriction is now being removed and that the council intends to start as soon as possible on a £6 million scheme, but it is doubtful whether the original completion date can now be advanced very much. That is what we are worrying about. We feel that, as the scheme started sooner, the completion date, in view of the nuisance, should be much sooner than is contemplated.

Finally, the booklet reveals that the residential people of London get their efficient sewerage service at a cost of 1d. per person per week; and that covers the expense of operation, maintenance and repayment of debt. We in Erith feel that that is cheap, and probably is largely at the expense of the people of Erith and the locality.

I was astonished—most people must have been—to learn that the question of dredging is a matter for the Port of London Authority. There is a great deal of evidence—I am sorry that I have not time to give it—on this point. I have a letter from a headmaster who asserts: Before the war it was possible to walk on shingle at low tide in the riverside area. Now there is a considerable depth of smelly mud. There is a great deal of testimony on this subject. I wrote to the Minister about the dredging, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the Port of London Authority had as many dredgers now as it had previously. I have evidence that the dredgers are never seen in the spots where they used to be seen before the war. Watermen tell me that they are now seen more often in the vicinity of Tilbury Docks. That is no use to Erith. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter.

We are also concerned about the fact that industrial premises are pouring more and more pollution into the river. I believe it would be out of order if I pursued that point, because it is a matter for the Port of London Authority. However, I would ask the Minister whether we have to wait until something serious happens, or have the people of Erith to march on London? It may be the case that certain people who have a job to do are not doing it as well as they ought. I hope that before there is a rising in the Erith district somebody will take some notice of the stuff going into the river there. The people who work there are asking that hon. Members go to see it. Those who have been to see it say that it really is shocking in 1955.

I hope I have said enough, and, also, that I have given sufficient time for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. The people of the locality hope that there will be evidence that the matter is being taken much more seriously. Any help or advice which the Parliamentary Secretary can give will be deeply appreciated, and if he has something kind to say, it will be looked upon as one of the best Christmas boxes which the district has ever had.

4.44 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) for his preliminary remarks. Certainly, I take no exception to his raising this subject at this or any other time. It is not an inappropriate subject for even a very minor swan-song.

The problem of pollution and smells in the Thames Estuary is a very real one. There is no wish on the part of my right hon. Friend, his Department or any of the public bodies concerned, to minimise it. There is no danger to public health. I think that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford accepts that. This is a matter of nuisance in the various ways which he has enumerated, and it is, of course, worse after warm, dry weather such as we had in the summer. It is an extensive nuisance and it is natural and proper that the hon. Member should complain about it, because a large number of his constituents are affected.

I should first like to make it clear that the duty of preventing pollution of the tidal Thames—I stress tidal—rests, by Statute, not with my right hon. Friend, but with the Port of London Authority. The Authority has powers of control over discharges of all kinds, with one important exception which I will mention in a moment. It is not responsible in the exercise of those powers to any Minister, and I want to be careful in which I have to say not to trespass on its ground.

The Authority has a job to do and, if I may say so, it does it very well. However, it is up against difficult problems and it is because of those problems that my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for, and who has had some experience of, the prevention of pollution in non-tidal rivers, takes a close interest in this question of tidal Thames pollution.

One of the biggest problems, possibly the biggest, has been the discharge to the middle reaches of the tidal river of effluents from London's main drainage system. I do not know whether it is news to the hon. Member, but through the London County Council's Northern and Southern Outfall Works more than 300 million gallons of sewage effluent flow into the tidal river daily. It has been clear for many years that if the river water is ever to be made any cleaner and the smells reduced in the stretches near Erith, more purification plant must be provided at the two London County Council works.

The quality of the discharges from those works, however, is exempted by Statute from the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority, so it is unfair to blame the Authority for any nuisance to which these London County Council discharges give rise from time to time, particularly as the Port of London Authority has for a long time regularly been drawing attention to the problem that these discharges cause. It is not really fair to blame the London County Council. It is not sheltering behind its exemption from the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority. The two authorities together are actively seeking improvement in the river's condition.

Just before the war, soon after it was first apparent that there would have to be some big improvement in the discharges from its works, the London County Council installed an additional purification plant to give extra treatment to 60 million gallons of sewage passing daily through its works. That plant was severely damaged during the war. After the war the London County Council, in full agreement with the Port of London Authority, concluded that massive further extensions to its sewage treatment plant should go forward as quickly as possible.

I need not remind the hon. Member that at that time there were various obstacles to undertakings on such a scale, and I shall not treat him to a history of the negotiations which went on to get that work started. Suffice it to say that early in 1953 the L.C.C. was at last told that there was no objection to its carrying on with further stages of the work. In 1954, the whole apparatus of controls over building and civil engineering were removed, and the London County Council scheme, costing a total of £14 million, is now in full swing.

The first stage, completed earlier this year—that was £1,600,000 worth of new sedimentation tanks at the Northern Outfall—has already resulted in a marked improvement of the quality of the effluent. The second stage that is now in progress is a scheme for £4 million worth of secondary treatment plant for a further 60 million gallons of daily flow; and that, added to the first, should, of course, lead to considerable further improvement. I mention this because it needs to be stressed that there has not been in this matter unnecessary dragging of the feet by the London County Council or the Port of London Authority.

Of course, the London County Council scheme will take a long time to complete, and it is perhaps unfortunate that the Council was not able to start it earlier than it did; but it is no use going back over that ground now. Each successive scheme will bring about an improvement in the tidal river's condition—an improvement which will be noticeable to those who suffer most and those in whom the hon. Member is most interested.

I ought to mention, apart from this, the smaller sewerage authorities which are concerned in this question in other stretches, and I ought to mention some of the things which have been done there. The Port of London Authority have left the smaller authorities in no doubt about what is expected of them. In consequence, a very large number of smaller improvement schemes have been put in hand or completed since the war, and this despite the difficulties which the sewarage authorities have come up against over money, steel and so on.

In Northfleet, Gravesend and the Medway towns, additional purification plant has been installed at a capital cost of £175,000. At Dartford, the West Kent Main Sewerage Board is about to provide extra treatment plant at a cost of £1,400,000. The Wandle Joint Sewerage Board has carried out sewage work improvements costing over £250,000. The Hogsmill Valley Sewerage Board is carrying out a purification works programme costing nearly £1 million. The Richmond Main Sewerage Board has reconstructed its sewage works at a cost of £400,000. At the Mogden sewage works, in West Middlesex, and at Thurrock, in Essex, other work has been done.

All these—this is by no means an exhaustive list—are places where minor schemes of improvement have been or are being or will be undertaken. All these improvement schemes, together with the major effort by the London County Council of £14 million to which I have referred, represent a really substantial effort to counter the trend of deterioration which has been noted in the tidal river's conditions during the last few years.

I think that they give some reason for hoping that from now onwards the total pollution of the river will steadily diminish, and that the smells which afflict the constituents of the hon. Member, and which are a very real nuisance, will diminish.

I want to say something about research work. The Port of London Authority has been concerned for some years about whether the standard of quality of many of the effluents discharged to the tidal river should not be raised higher than it is now. It is anxious to review the standards required for discharges of industrial waste, which is an important factor here, and which is a subject in which I know the hon. Member has taken an interest. The Authority has been concerned with the possible effects on the estuary of large-scale extractions of fresh water for public supply from the non-tidal Thames above Teddington.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

Will the hon. Gentleman say something about the idea that is getting abroad—I do not know whether it is a legend or not—that the wholesale use of detergents is having its effect on the Thames and stopping it from purifying itself from time to time? They have become an added and major irritant.

Mr. Deedes

I know that there is the question of synthetic detergents and the effect upon the river, and I will say something about that later.

These are very big issues. It was for that reason that four years ago the then Minister, in consultation with the Port of London Authority, appointed a widely representative Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Pippard, to steer a full technical investigation into the effects on the tidal river of the various discharges which were going into it. It reached an early conclusion that improvements at the London County Council sewage works were a prerequisite for improving the condition of the river. It was this view which clinched the Government's decision, three years ago, to allow the L.C.C. to go ahead with its major scheme. The effect of all the other discharges, however, is much more difficult to assess.

The Water Pollution Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which has been carrying out this technical investigation, has had an enormous task, and is only now in a position to make final conclusions available to the Pippard Committee. The calculations are being done with the aid of the National Physical Laboratory's computing apparatus at Teddington, and there are already indications that there will be dividends from this lengthy and rather extensive research. I hope that the hon. Member will feel able some time to accept the invitation extended to him in the letter which he mentioned—an invitation from the Director of Water Pollution Research—to visit the Laboratory and see the work on this problem.

Mr. Dodds

I accept, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deedes

I think that the hon. Member would find such a visit interesting and profitable.

If the conclusions of the Pippard Committee show that some radical measures are needed on the tidal river, beyond the sewage works extension schemes already in train, the Port of London Authority will have the full co-operation of the Government in measures which may be necessary to achieve these improvements. I wish to assure the hon. Member that the Port of London Authority is anxious to get a rapid and substantial improvement in the conditions of the river and I think that it is entitled to expect that everything practicable will be done to help in that task.

I wish now to return to the point about synthetic detergents raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It may be a contribution, if only a marginal contribution, to the bad conditions on the river. There are nowadays present in all sewage—they do not appear to be entirely removed by purification processes at the sewage works—traces of the residues of the synthetic detergents which I think all housewives use. There is a Committee on Synthetic Detergents which has been going into this, and its final report, which I think we must await before deciding on any administrative action, will be in the hands of my right hon. Friend in a matter of weeks. I think we must wait to see what the experts advise before settling on any course of administrative action.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept on behalf of his constituents what I say as reasonably satisfactory, and it remains only for me to wish you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member and others present and the officers of this House a very happy Christmas.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell

I have just completed 17 years in the service of the local authority within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds), and I am a constituent of his. I cannot think of any service which he has rendered since 1945 which is more worthy than this. As the Minister is at present a "bird of passage" from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the Home Office, he may deal with this with a nice objectivity. But he would not deal with it in that manner were he living in the district. This area has done much to beautify itself and to raise its rateable value and build housing estates. All that effort is ruined by the stench from the River Thames. Of all the things which should have high priority in regard to finance, I know of nothing more important than this, and no nuisance which needs to be abated more urgently or to which any Government should more urgently apply their minds.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock, till Tuesday, 24th January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.