RIVER TYNE (POLLUTION) (Hansard, 18 February 1958)

§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
I do not need to detain the House by arguing the merits of action to remedy the pollution of the River Tyne, because the condition of the river is only too well known to those who live in the County of Northumberland or on the banks of the river. The position today is that the condition of the river is deplorable and intolerable. I would not be using too strong a word if I said that the condition is almost indecent.
This is no party political question. All political parties, all local authorities and every individual with any knowledge of the situation of the river will agree that urgent action is necessary. I asked the Minister last week if he could state what he was doing to find a solution of this pollution problem. In effect, he answered that it was the primary responsibility of the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board which deals with the matter and which had its responsibilities well in mind. That, so far as I was concerned, was much too complacent an answer.
One of my ambitions before I die is to see that the pollution of the River Tyne is dealt with and the tunnel is built. As this matter has been going on for about twenty-five years, I feel that if it is to go on for another twenty-five years I shall not have the satisfaction of achieving my ambition.
What is the position? In 1936, the Commissioner for the Special Area in the North, Mr. Euan Wallace, recommended that a special consulting engineer should be appointed for the specific purpose of dealing or trying to deal with this question of pollution. As a result, nothing happened. In 1953, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government initiated discussions with the appropriate local authorities, and it was decided that float tests should be taken, the local authorities, of course, to provide the necessary finance. We knew that the float tests were taking place. I have just ascertained that the report is expected to be received by the local authorities at the end of this 1170 year. That again indicates that, front 1953 to 1958, this matter has been under discussion. If the float tests prove successful, it will then be the responsibility of the appropriate river board to decide for a main trunk sewer to be provided.
I understand the cost would be between £10 million and £15 million, a colossal sum. The experts are all agreed that a main trunk sewer would be the most suitable and appropriate way of dealing with the problem. We all hope that the float tests will prove successful. If they should not prove successful, the problem will have to be dealt with in a much more piecemeal way. That also would be a very expensive way, but that would be the solution of the problem if for technical reasons the main trunk sewer proposition could not he carried out.
I understand that Newcastle Corporation is undertaking the preparation of a comprehensive report on the whole question. All of us are delighted to pay tribute to Newcastle Corporation for its initiative in this mater. I understand that the report will be available, first for presentation to the local authority, and then I hope for general publication, in about six months. Then we shall have the whole picture before us.
I want as many hon. Members as possible from the North to take part in this debate because we must impress the Minister on the urgency of the matter. I want a specific assurance on one point. Suppose that the main trunk sewer is agreed to and that there are no technical difficulties to going ahead with the scheme, can we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that money will be allocated under the block grant to local authorities so that part of this tremendous cost may be borne by the Treasury? It is quite unrealistic to suppose that it can be borne by the general ratepayers. They will have to pay for the technical analyses before we finally arrive at the question of what action is practicable and possible.
It will give great satisfaction to the river board, local authorities, ratepayers and Members of Parliament concerned if we can hear from my hon. Friend that when a final decision is taken either for a main trunk sewer or for a more piecemeal arrangement to deal with pollution 1171 in the block grant there will be a reasonable allocation of finance to local authorities concerned provided they are prepared to spend money to deal with the terrible problem of pollution.
I want to say with all the emphasis I can command that this problem has been left in abeyance far too long. Unless we have as quick action as possible the future of the River Tyne, particularly from the point of view of many of my constituents who earn their living on the river, will be a very dangerous and uncertain one. I hope that my hon. Friend will be in a position to give us an assurance about finance and that in future when we ask Questions we can shake his complacency and make him take an active interest in this most important matter.

§ Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)
I should like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) on raising this very important subject, and to reinforce everything that she has said. Perhaps I may tell the Parliamentary Secretary that when he replied to the hon. Lady's Question the other day by saying that this was a matter for the river board, he was rather misleading. The river board is not responsible for the cleaning of tidal waters, and it is with those that we are principally concerned.
The hon. Gentleman is aware that the river board in question has, like others, been asking his Ministry for authority to extend its functions throughout the tidal waters. That makes it all the more extraordinary that he should have given that Answer. Does he accept responsibility for the fact that an adjacent authority, though some miles from the Tyneside and actually in another catchment area, is pumping its crude sewage over the hill to bring it down into the Tyne—as if we ourselves had not enough sewage of our own to put into the river. I refer to the Ponteland area whose scheme, I think, the hon. Gentleman's Ministry sanctioned about three years ago, in spite of the fact that a sewage farm would have cost very little more in capital expenditure.
We all agree that this is a most urgent matter. If the major capital scheme cannot be sanctioned, cannot the Ministry 1172 agree, at least, to give authorities in the smaller areas, in the outer developments and suburbs of the city, sanction to go ahead with relatively small schemes which would at least give some relief in the present appalling situation?

§ Mr. R. W. Elliott (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North)
I, too, wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and agree also completely with all that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has said. In the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and in the surrounding districts, there is great concern about the state of the Tyne. The Newcastle people, with great regularity, ask those of us who represent it in Parliament what is to be done about it. In supporting my hon. Friend, I would say to the Minister that if we cannot have the big trunk sewer scheme, let us get down to what can be done. Surely, no more sewage from the new housing estates and building areas should go into the Tyne. Let us get down to the business of generally making the River Tyne reasonably pure once again.

§ Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)
For, I think, almost the first time, I find myself supporting the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and on this occasion I do so wholeheartedly, and congratulate her on her initiative in raising this debate. I hope that the Minister realises what the problem is, and how big it is.
He should try to visualise the Tyneside area. It consists of the river, with a fairly steep bank on the south and a gentle slope on the north, with a great conurbation of about 1 million people stretching from the mouth of the river upwards for about 15 miles. It is a big industrial area, and includes about 15 local authorities. Practically the whole of the sewage of that great population and that industrial area goes into the river. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) says, even the sewage from Ponteland is pumped over a very high ridge of ground into the Tyne.
Until the middle of the nineteenth century the problem was not so bad. The thing that really polluted the Tyne 1173 was the change from earth closets to water closets. The result is that now, I suppose, the River Tyne is probably the worst polluted river in the kingdom—

§ Mr. J. C. Jennings (Burton)
No.

§ Mr. Short
Yes, indeed. It is one big open sewer running right through the middle of this conurbation, with a population of 1 million people.
The hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of trunk sewage, and said that the tests at present going on will show whether or not that is possible. That, of course, is the obvious solution. She also mentioned the efforts of Captain Euan Wallace, Commissioner for Special Areas, in the middle 'thirties. The trouble is that this matter crops up from time to time. Someone comes along and says it will cost £10 million, £15 million or £20 million. That frightens everybody, and the result is that nothing is done. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, I cannot understand why, at any rate, a start cannot be made. Why cannot every local authority in the Tyneside area start putting its own house in order? Let us start in a small way. I would be satisfied to see, say, a 20-year programme started to clean the river. At any rate, we would know that at the end of that period our objective would be achieved.
I appeal to the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has done, to take the initiative and to push the local authorities to see that a scheme is started and to ensure, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth said, that the finance is available to do the job. For heaven's sake, let us have some initiative from the Minister and at least get the job started.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins)
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and other hon. Members who have participated so very briefly in the debate. I am afraid that I shall have to speak rather quickly if I am to cover the points raised by various hon. Members.
First, the problem of sewerage and sewage is not a national problem but is 1174 essentially a problem for the local authorities. That is widely recognised both by local authorities, local authority associations, and, I believe, by both political parties. Although I shall have a word or two to say about the initiative which has been taken by the Minister in this matter, I should not like the House to think that the initiative regarding sewerage and sewage rightly belongs to my right hon. Friend.
It is true that the condition of the tidal waters of the Tyne has been the subject of representations by fishery and other interests for many years past. The size of this problem may be judged from the most recent report of the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board, which shows that sewage from a population of about 800,000 people is discharged into the river between Wylam and Tyne-mouth, a distance. I think, of about 20 miles. The conditions are made a good deal worse by the discharge of various effluents from industrial premises along the banks of the river. In the same report, the river board record that four large salmon and 20 sea trout were recently caught in the Tyne, so all is not lost yet.
I should like to make it plain that the pollution that is the subject of this complaint is almost entirely centered in the tidal reaches of the river over which the river board has no jurisdiction. I shall return to the point made about the form of my reply to the Parliamentary Question, if I may. But, in 1935, the Commissioner for Special Areas set up a special committee to examine the tidal part of the river and to advise on whether its condition was so dangerous as to call for measures to avoid risks to health. That Committee found that there was evidence of serious pollution. However, it did not accept as proved that the condition of the estuary was so harmful to public health.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) referred to the River Tyne as an open sewer. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that. Certainly none of the medical officers of health representing local authorities on Tyneside have gone anywhere near as far as saying that.

§ Mr. Short
That is the phrase used by the medical officer.

§ Mr. Bevins
It may have been used by a local medical officer, but I assure the House that not a single complaint about the condition of the Tyne has been received by my right hon. Friend from any medical officer of health in the service of a Tyneside Corporation in recent years.

§ Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)
It is in the report. The hon. Gentleman's Ministry receives the annual report of the medical officer of health for Newcastle. In each of those annual reports, for a number of years, he has drawn special attention to this festering mess of water.

§ Mr. Bevins
I repeat that it has never on any specific occasion been represented to my right hon. Friend, and it has certainly never been said that the condition of the River Tyne represented any danger to public health.
Since the war, it has been necessary to consider whether sites should be earmarked for sewage treatment works for the Tyneside towns and, in view of that, one of my right hon. Friend's engineering inspectors visited Tyneside in February, 1949. In 1953, my Ministry took the initiative—and I emphasise that—in calling meetings in Newcastle, which were attended by those local authorities which were willing to take an interest in the problem. My Ministry was not dragging its feet, and if there was any lack of initiative it was certainly not in Whitehall.
As a result of the meetings, ten of the authorities combined in 1955 to engage a consultant to carry out float tests to find if it would be practicable, from public health and amenity points of view, to discharge untreated sewage from all the authority areas into the sea through a single outfall at Souter Point in the Boldon Urban District area.
I understand that the Newcastle City Engineer has, with the approval of his local authority, acted on behalf of most of the Tyneside authorities to co-ordinate the arrangements and engage a consultant. I am bound to say, as hon. Members may know, that there were delays which have been said to be due to the weather and the consultant at present estimates that he will not be able to complete his tests until the summer of this year.
1176 If the results of the tests show that sewage cannot be discharged into the sea, then full or partial treatment will have to be considered and, if the recommendation of the consultant is for a joint treatment scheme, then the local authorities would have to employ a consulting engineer to prepare a scheme or schemes as the case may be. They would also need to determine the question of suitable sites for the various works. On the other hand, of course, if the tests show that discharge into the sea through one long outfall was practicable, a scheme would also have to be prepared, but, as has been stated this evening, it would be much less costly than the other one, probably amounting to one-quarter or one-fifth of the cost of the other scheme.
When the report of the tests is received by the authorities and has been considered, the authorities will have to decide in conjunction with my Department how to phase the work and to meet the cost. I do not want to conceal from hon. Members interested in this subject the fact that a combined scheme, whether the one or the other, will be very expensive and will have to be phased over a considerable time. However, not until we reach that point will it be necessary for my Ministry to take the initiative again. Once the reports have been received on Tyneside and have been considered, we shall be glad to co-operate in any way we can.
One or two specific questions were asked during this short discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth complained about the complacent nature of the answer to her Parliamentary Question last Tuesday. It is only fair to point out that, although I said that the Northumberland and Tyneside River Board was primarily responsible for the condition of the River Tyne, I went on to say that some of the local authorities were now exploring ways of disposing of domestic sewage, but that it would have to be some time before they could formulate their proposals.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) suggested that that reply was misleading, because I referred to the fact that the river board was the body primarily concerned with the condition of the Tyne. That is perfectly true and is a statement of fact. It is only fair to point out that my hon. 1177 Friend's Question did not refer to the tidal parts of the Tyne, but to the River Tyne.

§ Mr. Popplewell
Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the part of the river under discussion is the tidal part and that the part he is now referring to is well up the river. That comes under the control of the river board, but it is not affected by pollution.

§ Mr. Bevins
I do not dissent from that—

§ Mr. Popplewell
Then what is the argument?

§ Mr. Bevins
The questioner put a certain question and I gave a factual answer. I added that the local authorities were seeking ways of improving the position. I think that is perfectly fair.
My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that, in the event of one or other of these schemes coming to the point where it was considered a reasonable proposition by the local authorities acting together, and perhaps by the river board as well, we should be prepared to make financial allowance under the general grant. I can give no such assurance. It would not be for my right hon. Friend in any circumstances to say that it would be possible so to amend the formula of the general grant as to include financial assistance for a sewage scheme. That kind of measure falls entirely outside the perview of the general or block grant.

§ Mr. Short
The fact that this is not a relevant scheme within the legislation we are discussing and does not come within any of the eleven categories would not preclude the Ministry from giving a grant towards this excellent project.

§ Mr. Bevins
There is no legal power for my right hon. Friend to afford financial assistance.

§ Dame Irene Ward
He could take it.

§ Mr. Bevins
That is all very well, but that is not the question. The question I was asked was whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared so to amend tile general grant formula as to make provision for a scheme of that sort. My answer is, "No." This is a financial responsibility for the local authorities. Indeed, the whole matter is primarily one for the local authorities. My right 1178 hon. Friend has no cause for shame in this matter; indeed, he and not the local authorities took the initiative. We are perfectly willing to help on the basis of advice and to see that the scheme is properly phased when the time comes.

§ Mr. Popplewell
The Minister must realise how disappointing his reply will be to the whole of the Tyneside area. We all agree that normally the question of sewage disposal is one for the local authorities. But here there are literally hundreds of industrial and domestic sewers running into the Tyne, and to make anything like a scheme is outside the financial provisions of any local authority.

§ Mr. Bevins
There are many local authorities, and some not as substantial and powerful as the City of Newcastle, which have undertaken enormous sewerage schemes involving great expenditure. There is no reason why the municipalities on Tyneside should not get down to the job.

§ Mr. Popplewell
The Minister overlooks the fact that local authorities which have embarked on such schemes have received a percentage grant from the Government.

§ Mr. Bevins
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

§ Mr. Popplewell
After 18 years' experience of local authority work, I can say that, if the Minister looks again, he will find that sewerage development ranks for some kind of grant. I hope that the Minister will not close his eyes to the need for financial assistance when the reports are put in. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to be so emphatic on that point. The pollution of the Tyne is very great. The Minister may dissent from that and maintain that there are other rivers where the pollution is greater, but that is doubtful. In this case the pollution is of such a degree as to be a nuisance to public health, and the report of the medical officer of health has drawn special attention to it.