HC Deb 06 July 1955 vol 543 cc1141-8

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 46, at the end to insert: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the outfall sewers of the London County Council. The Amendment affects the County Borough of West Ham and also other boroughs and county boroughs in and around the East End of London. As the Clause stands it will mean that the county borough will lose the northern outfall sewers for rateable purposes. There are some other borough councils—which will, no doubt, be referred to by some of my hon. Friends—which will also lose a certain rate income, but I want to deal with the question as it affects West Ham.

The northern outfall sewer in the borough is not the ordinary type of sewer, as one understands the general interpretation of the word. Generally speaking, a sewer is a pipe which is under the ground. This one is most unusual, and perhaps unique, because it is not underground; it is not even lying on top of the ground; it is about 21 feet high and is placed upon a huge raised embankment, which stretches right across the centre of the county borough. The loss of rate income, owing to the fact that the ground which it occupies cannot be used for building purposes, is about £26,000.

At the moment the borough claims and draws from the London County Council a rate income in respect of the sewer, ands. I am given to understand that the county council and the borough are quite contented with the position. The sewer belongs to the London County Council; that is why it has been paying a rate in respect of this monstrosity—which, I think, is a better word than "sewer." Besides serving the East End of London it also serves other boroughs, as far west as Acton and, in a north-westerly direction, as far as Willesden. A pumping station which is associated with the sewer has a rateable value of about £7,000 a year. If the Amendment is not accepted both these hereditaments will be relieved from the rates, and the borough will lose a rate income of more than £46,000 a year, which is equivalent to a rate of about 9d. in the £.

The sewer is an absolute eyesore. I must be careful, because Parliamentary language will not enable me adequately to describe it, but the people of West Ham feel that, apart from any other considerations, they are already handicapped, simply because this sewer is in their area. I emphasise that point because, when we discussed this question during the Committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that he had great sympathy with West Ham and would like to do something in the matter. He said that his difficulty was that if he did something here other boroughs would probably ask for similar treatment.

I then challenged him to mention any other area in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales—and, if he likes, he can include. Europe or any other part of the globe—which has anything similar to this sewer. He may be able to give examples of sewers which are above ground, or which go for a few feet across a roadway, river or canal, but I challenge him to tell us where there is another sewer which is 21 feet above the ground, upon a raised embankment spreading over 31 acres of land I do not know of any. I notice that the Minister is laughing. Fortunately or unfortunately, he was not present when this point was mentioned during the Committee stage, but he has probably read the report of the debate.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

I opened the extension to this sewer last Friday.

Mr. Lewis

That is just the point I was leading up to. It seems that the Minister has not read the report of the Committee stage as closely as he might have done; otherwise he would recollect that we mentioned that we knew he was going to Barking to open the extension to this sewer, and we suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister might hold up our Amendment pending the Minister's personal investigation of the situation. We knew that he was going, and we thought that the sight which would hit his eyes when he travelled down the Beckton Road and the Barking bypass might cause him to appreciate the justice of our case, which I put forward not only upon general grounds but also upon the particular ground of West Ham's very precarious financial position.

4.0 p.m.

West Ham was the worst bombed borough in the war. It suffered enormous damage to every type of property. It lost more than a third of all rateable property; hence it lost more than a third of its rate income. Because of that it now has the very grave and serious problem of trying to build up its industry and particularly of housing. Its housing problem is enormous. It is getting on with the job of housing, but every house it builds is a rate liability. The more it deals with the problem of housing the more it increases its rate liability and financial difficulties within the borough.

It has lost a third of its rates because of the war and is adding to its problems because of difficulties connected with rebuilding. It is losing a fantastic sum because of industrial derating, which matter I shall not develop, Sir Charles, because you would call me to order if I did so. For all those reasons West Ham now has a rate of 28s. in the £ and it is almost certain that the rate will again be increased in the next financial year, If the Bill goes through as it is, at least another 9d. in the £ will go on the rates.

On many occasions we have asked the present Minister, his predecessor, or other previous Ministers, for special financial assistance because West Ham is in a difficult position. I am pleased to say that each of the Ministers has acknowledged and accepted that fact. We are grateful that they have given extra financial assistance, but it is no good giving West Ham financial assistance to overcome some of its economic difficulties and, at the same time, completely removing rate income of £46,000.

I speak on behalf of a number of boroughs. I cannot speak on behalf of the L.C.C., but to my knowledge the L.C.C. does not object to the present position. Why should the L.C.C. be relieved of £26,000 in rates when, although I would not say it is not anxious to be so relieved, it is not pressing to be relieved from the present position?

I ask the Minister to bear in mind the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, who said that he felt there was a difficulty. He could not see how it could be dealt with in isolation. The object of this Amendment is to deal with the position in such a way that it can only apply to the northern and southern outfalls of London County Council and cannot be interpreted as covering any of the other normal types of sewer, which seemed to worry the Parliamentary Secretary. In view of the facts I have mentioned, I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Sir Ian Horobin (Oldham, East)

In two or three sentences, I wish to renew the support I gave to this proposal in the previous discussion in Committee. The general case has been argued. Whether some analogies can or cannot be found, this is a quite exceptional case and can be dealt with as an exceptional case.

The point upon which those who know the area will want to be satisfied is why we cannot be left as we are? Nobody wants any change. This is a rare occasion on which those who get the money, those who pay the money and those who live in the district concerned want to be left alone. The proposal of the Bill seems a quite unnecessary piece of Departmental tidying up the only effect of which would be to annoy everybody and to do a grave injustice to a borough which has many problems. Relations of London County Council with metropolitan Essex —to put it mildly—have not always been as unanimous and friendly as they are on this matter. Finding one happy occasion when the interests and wishes of all these great authorities go the same way, why should the Department stir up trouble? All we are asking is that the position should remain as it is.

Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking)

When I spoke in Committee on the Bill on Thursday last I reminded the Minister that he was visiting my constituency the following day and that I hoped he would have a look at this monstrosity. I have no doubt that he did so, because he could not fail to see it even without any aids to ordinary vision. I hope that when he looked at it he came to a conclusion that it must be regarded as something exceptional.

Again and again, London has been regarded in our legislation as something distinct from the rest of the country. That is not only because it is the capital city, but because of geographical conditions. London would have the greatest difficulty in getting rid of its sewage within the area of the County of London. The consequence has been that to deal with sewage and turn the fluid part safely into the mouth of the River Thames, and get rid of the solid part by means of sludge vessels, the County Council has taken the sewage to Kent and Essex to sewerage works on the borders of the estuary of the Thames.

In doing so, in order to save pumping the sewage up again to ground level at the sewerage works, the sewers have been run above the level of the ground in spite of the eyesore which has resulted. So far as I know the London County Council, of which I happen to be an alderman, has never raised any objection to paying rates for that privilege. Because of this huge erection, running right across a large area of metropolitan Essex—a district which is, to a large extent, built-up—the affected areas have been unable to have houses built which would pay substantial rates. For that reason, very rightly, no one has objected to substantial rates being paid by the owners of the northern and southern out-fall sewers.

Metropolitan Essex, including my own constituency, derives no benefit from this sewer; it does not discharge its own sewage into it. Indeed, the sewer is a disadvantage. It is a potential danger, and during the war it was not only a potential but a very real danger. As a result of bombing, a large area was flooded with London sewage, which meant possible danger from water-borne diseases. Even without war conditions the existence of such a huge sewer is not only a disadvantage but a danger, because we know that sewers may easily leak, and where the sewer is above ground the leakage is liable to spread, not under the surface of the soil but above it. In epidemics, or even sporadic cases of typhoid fever in the London area, such leaking would expose my constituency and others to a very real danger.

On behalf of the borough which I represent, as well as on behalf of those north and south of the Thames which are involved, I appeal to the Minister to give this Amendment very careful consideration. As has already been stated, no one is asking for anything fresh. It is only asked that the present state of affairs, which has existed for a number of years—and about which no one, as far as I know, has objected—shall remain unchanged. We do not seek to change the whole structure of the Bill, but only to make London a particular case as has happened in connection with a number of different types of legislation in the past.

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

It might be helpful if I answer the speeches so far made on the subject of this great sewer, which has played a very prominent part in our discussions on the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) said, it is not an ordinary type of sewer. He rightly quoted its outlandish dimensions—21 feet high, I think—as a fact very relevant to the Amendment. This work occupies 31 acres of land and the hon. Member described it as an eyesore and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) described it as a monstrosity.

It is plain that this is a vast sewer, and not in any way attractive—though I should add that my right hon. Friend, on his visit last week, was impressed, in a kind of way, by its grandeur. I think I should add—and I am sure that it will be accepted by the Committee—that neither size nor aesthetics are factors of which it is very easy to take cognisance in rating matters. Were either outlandish size or ugliness to become considerations in rating we should have even greater complications than we now face.

The hon. Gentleman quoted what I said when we last discussed this sewer, and I should like to recall my exact words. I said: … without undertaking to do anything at all, I will satisfy myself between now and the next stage of the Bill whether this is an absolutely unique example and with which there is nothing comparable anywhere else in the country."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1955; Vol. 543, c. 544.] There were obvious reasons for seeking to make absolutely certain that that was so.

There has never been a survey of our sewers—there is no complete record of their sizes, heights, and so on—but I think that it is firmly established that there is no sewer comparable in size with this. There are 48-inch sewers running overground in various parts but they are Lilliputian compared with this one. In the light of my remarks I therefore interpret the discoveries which we have made as meaning that we should accept this Amendment. That we shall do. Perhaps I should add that the term, … the outfall sewers of the London County Council is not a sufficiently distinctive definition. It does not make it absolutely clear that the Amendment relates to the portion above the ground. Perhaps we could be allowed to do something about the wording, which we will undertake to do. Otherwise, we accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

The hon. Gentleman will remember that there are two sewers, each, I gather, equally gigantic and peculiar. One is the northern, and the other the southern out-fall. I take it he will agree that his undertaking extends to both outfalls?

Mr. Deedes

Yes.

Mr. Hastings

I should like to thank the Minister, and add to my thanks the hope that he will again visit my constituency.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

I, too, should like to thank the Minister on behalf of boroughs—of which Woolwich is one—which will be particularly grateful for his assurance about the southern outfall.

Mr. Lewis

I am sure that we are all very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted the Amendment, even if not its actual wording. On behalf of all those concerned, I should like to express to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary our grateful thanks. In view of hon. Gentleman's promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.