QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 24 June 1890)

§ LORD BELPER,

in rising to call attention to the necessity of giving to Local Authorities some control over rivers and watercourses within their districts for the purpose of prevention of floods, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the desirability of conferring on County Councils defined and strictly limited powers for this purpose, said: My Lords, the question I have put down upon the Notice Paper is one not only of some interest to County Councils, but also to your Lordships and the public, and especially those who live in counties which are subject periodically to inundations from the rivers in their districts. I am very conscious of this evil, as I myself live in the neighbourhood of two rivers. At the 1754 outset, I should like to say that I am thoroughly aware of the extreme difficulties which surround this question on account of the very large number of interests which have to be considered, interests which, owing to the various minor Acts of Parliament which deal with the question, have had their powers extended or curtailed by those particular Acts of Parliament in different districts. Therefore in any suggestions I am going to make, I hope I shall make none that are unreasonable, or that will in any way interfere with those interests, or which could reasonably be taken exception to by those ratepayers who are not themselves sufferers. The question of the conservation of rivers is one which has attracted a large share of the attention of Parliament, both here and also in the other House. In 1887, a Committee of your Lordships' House took a large amount of evidence from skilled witnesses, and from persons who were conversant with the various local circumstances, and there were, I believe, at least two Bills introduced into your Lordships' House, dealing with the matter. In successive Sessions the question was discussed, both in the House of Commons and in this House, and, although no legislation actually took place, I think one of the Bills, at any rate, that of the noble Lord Earl Spencer, passed through this House. Since that time the question, as far as legislation is concerned, has been allowed to slumber; but I think that the interest in it has not abated is clear from the fact that almost immediately on the formation of direct Councils of the rate papers, this was one of the first questions taken up in the counties which are subject to floods. The county of Huntingdon was the first to move in the matter. There they passed a resolution in favour of some powers being given to them. The neighbouring county of Cambridge also, I believe, took up the question, and the County Council of Nottinghamshire, of which I am Chairman, has passed a resolution very much in the terms of the notice which I have placed on the Paper of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I think, I may be allowed to assume that there is an evil existing which has to be dealt with, and which has been recognised by both Local Authorities and by Parliament. If you look at the evidence brought before 1755 the Committee to which I have referred, it is abundantly clear that there has been a large amount of damage done by flood to agricultural land, and also that those poor people who live in villages and small towns subject to floods, suffered a large amount of loss, discomfort, and even of sickness from that cause. I should like to say at once that I do not wish to suggest any legislation on the lines of the Bills which have been previously brought into your Lordships' House. I do not wish, in the slightest degree, to criticise those measures, but I venture to think that public opinion has somewhat modified on this question during the last 10 years. Your Lordships will remember that those Bills gave an enabling power for the purpose of setting up authorities in different localities, under which Boards might be formed which would have very large powers of dealing with the surplus flood water in their neighbourhood; and the principal contest and opposition upon those Bills arose, I think, on what are called the rating clauses. There was a very strong feeling among those who do not suffer from floods themselves that they should not be rated, in any degree at all, in order to relieve the lands of those who were less fortunately situated. I must say that I think this feeling with respect to rates has increased, because, generally speaking, the rents of agricultural land in the neighbourhood of rivers have decreased during the last few years, and there is certainly a strong feeling that we ought not to pass any legislation which would be liable to increase the rates on lands which are now heavily rated. But the point which I wish 'specially to present to your Lordships is that, whatever may be your opinion with regard to such measures, there are certain obligations which are imposed by law both on private individuals and on those who have rights over rivers, which ought in the first instance to be enforced. Clearly, if you look at the circumstances, which must be known to many of your Lordships, there are many of those obligations under which conservators of rivers, millowners, and others, have been placed, which are never carried out at all. It is perfectly true if a private individual chooses to prosecute, if damage results from care- 1756 lessness, he may do so; but there is an indisposition to prosecute. What is everybody's business is nobody's business, and private individuals do not like to place themselves in the position of public prosecutors. The consequence is that no action is taken, because there is no body or power which has any control over rivers for this purpose, and there is really no power whatever of enforcing the law, if it exists. Now, I do not wish to trouble your Lordships at greater length than necessary, but I think I ought to call your attention to certain instances of the sort which arise where those obligations are not carried out. I will mention the cases which have come within my own knowledge, and I have also found that all those cases are absolutely confirmed by the evidence of the various witnesses called before the Committee in 1877, who, I may say, were resident in all parts of the country. First, let me take the case of flood-gates and weirs. It is an extremely common incident of rivers, where rights have been given either for the purpose of navigation or to millers, that weirs have been erected and floodgates with them. An elementary duty of those who have had such powers given them over rivers is to keep those floodgates properly open, not only while flood-water is actually coming down, but for a sufficient time to enable the water to get off before the flood has taken place. That is a duty which may be recognised, but it is certainly not carried out; and the witnesses before that Committee spoke to the importance of having some special authority, which shall take care that those flood-gates on rivers shall be kept open for a particular time, which may be necessary to allow the water to come down. Then with regard to weirs. It is, of course, the duty of the Navigation Authorities or owners to keep their weirs free from weeds and rubbish; but there is an even more important point to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention, and that is, that in many cases, to my own knowledge, and it is, no doubt, also within the knowledge of many of your Lordships, weirs have, during some years past, been erected perfectly legally, and under pretence perhaps of repairing them have been raised it may be several inches, which has had the effect of raising the water above the 1757 original height. In regard to this matter I should like to mention this one point: in the evidence given before that Committee the present Speaker of the House of Commons gave some most valuable testimony with regard to floods in the rivers in his neighbourhood, and he mentioned a case which actually occurred within his own knowledge. A millowner finding he did not get quite as much water as he wished for his mill, actually built a wall right across the river! And though the height of the wall was afterwards modified, as the Navigation Authority had to go to Parliament for the purpose of its being abolished, yet it seems almost inconceivable that anybody having a mill upon a river could build a wall right across the stream without any interferance whatever from anybody in the neighbourhood. My Lords, it is something like a scandal that there should be no Public Authority of any kind which should possess a power of interference with anybody who may choose to act in that way on a river, under circumstances such as I have mentioned. Then there is the question with regard to beds of rivers. Undoubtedly floods are often caused by the beds of rivers becoming silted up from not being kept properly clear. Many of the witnesses before the Committee spoke to the fact that though that duty is imposed upon companies which have navigation rights, they are never carried out, because there is nobody to mtertere for the purpose of enforcing that obligation. I believe that any County Council, acting through their surveyor, and with a Committee properly formed to look after such matters, would be able to do a great deal in the way of keeping beds of rivers free from silt and rubbish coming down. Then there is the question of bridges. As your Lordships are aware, when new bridges are now built County Councils have power over them in certain ways. If it is a bridge on a main road, the County Councils have themselves power, or if it is a bridge to which they have to contribute in any way, to see that the arches of the bridge are wide enough to permit the flood-waters to come down through them; but in respect of any ordinary bridge the County Council would have no power whatever, and many bridges have been built which would seriously 1758 interfere with the flow of flood-water, and, therefore, cause floods in the neighbourhood. I might mention one case within my own knowledge of a bridge over the River Trent, at Nottingham. That was a very old bridge, with a considerable number of arches. The surveyor for the borough of Nottingham gave evidence that, when the old bridge was done away with, and a new bridge was placed in the same position, it actually lowered the height of the water 18 inches. Your Lordships will, therefore, understand the importance of seeing to that matter, and the necessity of taking care that the waterway is kept open in rivers and streams. I will only mention one more case, that is with regard to new schemes under private Acts of Parliament which may be got by Local Authorities, such as the Corporations of large towns. I myself know a case in point, and many other cases were mentioned before the Committee where Acts were got for the alleviation of floods by Corporations; greatly for their own benefit, undoubtedly, but the inevitable result is that, unless there is some authority which can watch them and see what they are doing, the flood waters are sent down much more quickly on the lands below them, and, though the town may benefit, the county may suffer. If the County Councils had some power with regard to rivers, of course they could see that any scheme that was carried out in their neighbourhood would not interfere with the streams or water over which they have jurisdiction. Now, my Lords, I have mentioned a few cases, and I believe many more might be mentioned where, if some authority of this sort could be given, it might be valuable. It may be said that the rules and regulations under which rivers are governed vary so much that powers to interfere may not exist. Even in these cases, however, I think the County Councils might do a great deal by arrangement and by conciliation, and by inducing agreement among the different authorities along the banks of the rivers. I would call your Lordships' attention to this point, that it is not to the interest of anybody on a river, either Navigation Companies or mill-owners, that floods should be allowed to occur. By a little activity and timely attention those floods could be dimi- 1759 nished, and, therefore, I believe, all the authorities would feel themselves interested in acting with the County Councils for the purpose of seeing that the necessary precautions were carried out. There is only one other point with which I will trouble your Lordships, and that is, if you agree that some sort of power ought to be given to a Local Authority, whether that powerought not to be entrusted to the County Councils. The County Councils now represent all classes. They do not merely represent the landowners, but ratepayers of all classes equally with the landowners. They have acting under them a qualified surveyor, who is generally an engineer also, who is perfectly competent to deal with such matters. Such suggestions as might be made could be carried out really without any great expense on the I part of the County Councils; and if the question of expense arose, it is clear that a body directly representing the ratepayers would not incur expense unless they thought it for the benefit not only of the people living on the banks of the river, but of the county generally. I should like here to point out that you have already conferred on County Councils powers very similar to those which I am mentioning with regard to the prevention of floods in reference to fisheries, and in regard to the pollution of rivers. The powers which I ask for them with respect to floods are almost precisely identical with those which they now have for preventing the pollution of streams. The power of prosecuting and of combining with other bodies should be given as far as might be necessary for the purpose of carrying out these matters. I am well aware that the powers given in regard to the pollution of rivers are not very extensive, and perhaps for that reason, if adequate, they are more likely to be successful. I would venture to make the same remark in reference to floods, that if the powers given were too extensive, they would be more likely to lead to friction than powers less extended. They would obtain the support of manufacturing people better than more extended powers. I have only now to thank your Lordships for the very kind attention which you have given to my remarks on what I am afraid I must call, in one sense, a very dry subject. I have put no 1760 Motion on the Paper, and I only ask the Government for their favourable consideration of the matter. I am well aware that there may be many of your Lordships who might think that more extended powers would be desirable; but I will only say that I do hope the Government will seize the opportunity of the County Councils being now established for taking the first step in the matter, even though it may be a very small one, that is of grappling with an evil which is universally acknowledged in this House and throughout the country, and which has been too long standing in the way for settlement by Parliament.