HL Deb 26 October 1949 vol 164 cc1247-57

2.47 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement in The Times on October 15 by the Metropolitan Water Board that the Enborne Valley reservoir scheme has been abandoned, the suspense which still hangs over the inhabitants of the valley can be definitely removed, and whether an assurance can be given to that effect; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason I have brought up this matter which is embodied in the question I am asking the Government is that lately a report on the subject has been issued by the Metropolitan Water Board. I propose to deal with it as shortly as possible. There are one or two matters I want to ask the Government to investigate. I understand that the Thames Conservancy in 1908 and again since then, made certain investigations. I should like to ask the Government whether they will look into that matter and find out whether the Metropolitan Water Board asked for those reports. If your Lordships were embarking on any big undertaking and knew that some years before an investigation had been made and, as a result of that investigation, the whole project had been shut down, I am sure you would want to see those reports before you incurred a large expenditure of money.

It is admitted in the report that I have here that £70,000 has been spent on this investigation in the Enborne Valley by the Metropolitan Water Board. My information is that there is no doubt whatever that, if they had gone into this question with other people who investigated this subject years ago, they would not have spent one penny, because the same disqualification for such a project exists to-day as existed then, and so far as I can make out, is likely to remain for all time. My neighbours (of whom there are 6,000) and I who live in this Valley have had eighteen months' suspense and worry while these investigations have been proceeding. It has now been set out in the report, from which I will read one or two lines. It is a summary of a rather technical character. First of all, there is the technical and biological report and objections. It is summed up as follows: In addition the biological quality of the water could never be guaranteed to be of a standard which should be discharged into a river"— that is, the Thames. For these reasons we are of opinion that that portion of the scheme to return water to the River from the reservoir is not a practicable proposition and should be abandoned. I want to dwell on the word "abandoned" for one moment, because I think it is important. Subsequently, the chief engineer went into another proposition with regard to the same Valley, and this is the result of his investigation: The water would be conveyed directly to the Board's purification works by means of an aqueduct instead of being discharged into the river. Subject to the geologists' report being satisfactory there would appear to be no objections to this modified scheme from the engineering, and biological aspects, but the cost would be considerably increased, and the Enborne scheme in consequence loses its attraction on financial grounds. There are the two things that have been investigated: the technical and biological question of the water being entirely unfit to be discharged into the Thames; and the question of expense that the committee could not recommend.

I would like to refer for a moment to London's water supply. As your Lordships know, we have had an abnormal drought this summer, and yet I am not aware that anybody in London has been asked to be particularly careful or not to have a bath. I have seen no notices displayed to that effect. I understand, too, that people have been able to get their cars washed in garages as in ordinary times. Then there is the question of London's population. Is the population of London going to increase very greatly? We have these satellite towns being established all over the country, and from observation and study of the subject I would say that the population of London will probably remain what it is now. Although the Committee of the Metropolitan Water Board have recommended the abandonment of both these schemes, the chairman made one remark, which has filled us with gloom in the Valley. He said that inquiries would be continued in the Enborne Valley; that the people of the Enborne Valley had been in a state of uncertainty for eighteen months; that the Board were sorry they had been kept in suspense, but that they must still further be kept in suspense.

I do make a very strong appeal to His Majesty's Government to take up this matter. We have been kept in this tragic position for the eighteen months mentioned, and although abandonment of the scheme has now been recommended by the Committee set up by the Metropolitan Water Board, the chairman still refers to certain other investigations. It seems to me that what maintains now in the Valley in regard to these conditions is not likely to alter in the future, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will do something to relieve us as soon as possible from the position in which we find ourselves. If it is decided that this suspense should be continued I feel very strongly that the Metropolitan Water Board should buy our property from us and rent it to us. Everything is deteriorating in the Valley. No one is spending a penny on anything—fencing, drainage, gates and so on. All the people do as little as possible because of what I have described before as this Sword of Damocles hanging over them; and they would be foolish to do otherwise. There is no development going on anywhere, and I do ask His Majesty's Government to take up this matter as strongly as possible and as soon as possible. I beg that they will do something to protect us from be continuance of this state of affairs. I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and to move for Papers.

2.54 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I want to make just a brief, factual statement and then I hope to be in a position to give the noble Lord the assurances that he desires. Before I enter upon the factual statement, perhaps I should reply briefly to one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord in his speech. I have taken note of the report made by the Thames Conservancy Board in 1908, and I will cause inquiries to be made as to whether proper attention has been given to it. I would say, however, that this and other reports of the Metropolitan Water Board will not be published by His Majesty's Government. Obviously, however, before Parliament can give proper attention to the facts the Government will have to make representations to the authorities concerned so that those reports can be made available. I do not know of the amount of money expended by the Metropolitan Water Board in the Enborne Valley, and even if I did, I could not at this stage very well comment upon it; as the noble Lord knows, in this matter the Minister of Health occupies a dual position. Nor can I comment on the point that he has raised about the use of Thames water. But I will see that the point mentioned by him receives appropriate attention.

Briefly, the facts are as follows. Last year a report was made to the Metropolitan Water Board indicating that a very much larger storage of water was required for the people of London. That report contained no recommendations, but it was indicated that in the Enborne Valley an impounded reservoir could be erected which would hold three times the amount of water of the proposed reservoirs at Walton, Wraysbury and Datchet. The Metropolitan Water Board were not committed by the report. They had to take cognisance of the fact that the report had been made, and they had to authorise the necessary inquiries in the Valley. Moreover, the Minister of Health on three occasions gave authority for the prosecution of inquiries. But I want to emphasise this: that by those actions neither the Metropolitan Water Board nor the Minister of Health were committed. They were entirely free to reach decisions upon the final reports, whatever might be their nature. The final decision, however, is not one for the Metropolitan Water Board or for the Minister of Health. Ultimately, decisions taken by both Minister and authority will have to be embodied either in a Special Order or in a Bill. They will therefore come before both Houses and the final decision will remain with Parliament.

As the noble Lord has said, the Metropolitan Water Board on October 14 this year had a meeting and, according to the Press, they decided at that meeting not to proceed at present with the tentative proposals for the Enborne Valley. The Minister took immediate action, and called for the reports, engineering, geological and biological, from the Metropolitan Water Board. The Board, as I understand, have undertaken to provide the Minister with copies of those reports. The Minister has specially asked me to say that he is well aware of the difficulties created in the Enborne Valley by the apparent delay, but he would like me to say to your Lordships that inquiries of this kind inevitably take time. He agrees, however, that if more time than necessary were expended it would be the duty of the Minister to enter into consultation with the Board with a view to expediting the report and a decision.

Notwithstanding the feelings of the people in the Valley the Minister cannot make an arbitrary decision. He cannot say to the Metropolitan Water Board now, "You must not proceed with this scheme." It will be for the Metropolitan Water Board to put in their proposals and it will then be for the Minister to hold an inquiry, and it will be his duty—a duty that he will carry through—to listen to all the representations that may be made to him, as he must act in such a case in a quasi-judicial capacity. Your Lordships will understand, therefore, my previous reference to an arbitrary decision. He does wish me to emphasise, however, that he will continue in touch with the Board so that the decision can be expedited, as he fully understands the disquietude amongst residents in the area.

3.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

My Lords, as a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, I would like to say how much I, and I know all members of the Board, sympathise with the position in which the inhabitants of the Enborne Valley find themselves placed. We are not a factious body by any means. We are not considering this great scheme merely with a view to being troublesome, but we are charged with the very important duty of supplying London with water. We have more than 6,500,000 consumers of water in London, and the consumption is going up year after year. At the present moment, we are supplying something like 330,000,000 gallons of water a day to consumers of London's water. To give an idea of what that means, let me tell your Lordships that that is a volume of something like four times the amount of water in the Serpentine, and it is consumed every day by people who use water in London. Therefore, our problem is a great and difficult one.

It appears to us that there is a prospect of steady increase in consumption in the future. There are thousands and thousands of houses in London at the present time with no bath. Many thousands more have only one tap, and the consumption of water per head of the population is bound to go up year after year as new houses are built and more advantage is taken of the facilities that are being provided. Just before the war the consumption per head was 43 gallons; now it is running at something like 50 gallons. So your Lordships will see that we cannot stand still. All the time we have to look round and see where the water that will be needed for the future generations of this great city is coming from. We had before us recently proposals for three reservoirs—one at Datchet, one at Wraysbury and one at Walton. These reservoirs are relatively of a small capacity—altogether, I think, something like 16,000,000,000 or 18,000,000,000 gallons—and the Enborne Valley scheme was then proposed. This, as your Lordships may be aware, is a scheme for a vast reservoir with a capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 gallons, and it appeared to us that this would satisfy London's demand for water for a great many years to come.

That reservoir was originally envisaged as a deep reservoir—a 100 ft. darn was going to be built across the bottom of the Enborne Valley. Since then, as the noble Lord has pointed out, certain difficulties have arisen with regard to the bacteriological effect of deep reservoirs. We have not had the experience with deep reservoirs that has been gained abroad, and these bacteriological problems have now come to light. So the Enborne Valley scheme which originally seemed so attractive ceased on the grounds of expense to be the attraction it was. Since then we have had to consider the problem of whether it would not be possible to have a shallow reservoir at the Enborne Valley with the water piped to London. That scheme is being investigated at the present time. It takes a great deal of time to get the proper engineering appreciation of a vast undertaking like this, and only some eighteen months have passed since the engineers first examined the spot. It will be a little longer before a full report will be made on the borings from which we can decide whether the reservoir will be properly watertight or not.

In the meantime the construction of the reservoirs at Datchet and Wraysbury is to go on. But the future holds some extremely difficult problems. Sooner or later some other great reservoir will have to be built, but whether in the Enborne Valley or in some other part of the country no one can foresee at the present time. I would, however, like to assure the noble Lord that we on the Metropolitan Water Board are most sympathetic with regard to the interests and feelings of the people of the Enborne Valley, and we do not wish to keep them in suspense any longer than is absolutely necessary.

3.6 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in this debate for very long. This is not the first occasion on which we have heard of the Enborne Valley scheme. It has now been taken a stage further, and it would appear that, for various reasons, the Metropolitan Water Board are not going to pursue their scheme for a deep reservoir. But they still have their fingers on the Enborne Valley and are considering the construction of a shallow reservoir. So the inhabitants of the Enborne Valley are left in a position of doubt. not knowing whether they are going to be able to keep their land there, and not enabled, as others are, to do those necessary works to improve its value agriculturally, and so undertake the burden which has been placed upon owners and occupiers of land by the Minister of Agriculture.

The point that I want to make is that this reveals with even greater clarity the difficulties we are in with regard to our water supply. We have heard that something has to be done for London. I do not blame the Metropolitan Water Board, because they have the responsibility of finding the water for London. But I do blame His Majesty's Government because, apparently, they have no clear policy with regard to water supplies in general. If they had a distinct policy which covered the whole country—and this has been urged upon them as a matter of grave importance not only to London but to other big centres of population as well—we should not have these piecemeal attempts to improve the situation here and there. These piecemeal plans cause great disturbance to the occupiers and owners of the land which will be concerned and are a serious deterrent to the people inhabiting the areas from doing their best in the present difficult circumstances of the country.

3.8 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, I should like to support with all my strength what has just been said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. After all, those of us who are concerned—some of us are concerned directly and others indirectly—with the very important matter of food production in this country realise that this question of water, as exemplified in the Enborne Valley scheme, is one of those things that have a deterrent effect on efforts at greater production of food. I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl. I am convinced that those who have the interest of agriculture and the country as a whole at heart feel that occurrences of this kind are a real deterrent to the achievement of the policy which we are all out to implement.

3.9 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speeches which have been made in this debate. Naturally I have the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and those for whom he speaks, who are affected by this Enborne Valley proposition. I have also the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Viscount who spoke for the Metropolitan Water Board. There is one question which I would like to ask—I am not sure if it has been already dealt with. It is whether there is a possible alternative to the Wraysbury, Datchet and Enborne Valley schemes. Mention has been made in the public Press of the possibility of transferring water from, I think, the Severn Valley to the Thames watershed. I do not know whether that possibility has been considered, or even whether it is a practical scheme. But I hope that if there is anything in it it will be examined with great care, because if successful it would, I imagine, do away with the necessity for causing any disturbance in the Enborne Valley. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply for His Majesty's Government will see that that particular aspect is considered and most carefully weighed.

3.10 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, I will not intervene for more than a few moments, but I must stress that we are most anxious to do everything that we can to alleviate as soon as possible the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and his friends. My noble friend Lord Shepherd made that quite clear, I think, and I wish to protest most emphatically against the intervention of the noble Earl opposite and his supporter on this side. The noble Earl might just as well blame His Majesty's Government for the drought which we have experienced, or for the rainy weather to-day. We have been exceedingly active in these matters, and indeed the House has often taken us to task for the comprehensive nature and the far-reaching character of the proposals which the Government have introduced. But here we are only inheriting the results of the neglect of a generation of rule by the noble Lord's friends.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, this debate seems to be getting slightly outside the Enborne Valley and perhaps we should try and bring it back to that. So far as I know, the history of London's water supply shows that great improvements were made, not by any Government but by the Metropolitan Water Board in the years on which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just thought fit to animadvert. It is most disappointing that people take so long to make up their minds. More than anything else this country needs to go ahead with food production and the improvement of the land. If this large valley is threatened with the possibility of being swamped by the Metropolitan Water Board, things in the Valley are inclined to mark time. Nobody is going to put a lot of work and money into the necessary improvements that might otherwise have been begun. I hope this matter will be expedited. I was rather sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, tell us how many processes had to be gone through before a final decision was come to. This matter ought to be expedited as much as possible and the Metropolitan Water Board compelled, on national grounds, to make up their minds quickly where they are going to have any new reservoirs, if they be necessary. When such a matter comes into prominence it is only the Government themselves who are able to arbitrate between the needs of London's water supply and the agricultural needs of the country. I hope that this matter will be tackled as quickly as possible.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I suppose that is all I can hope for at the moment. I am cheered, however, by the fact that this is the first time in the last eighteen months that the Government have decided to take a hand. It will be of great satisfaction to all of us in the Valley that the Government themselves are looking into this matter. I can tell the noble Lord that the figure of 70,000 was in the report of the Metropolitan Water Board. With regard to the speech of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, as is well known there are three Government Departments heavily involved in this question—the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Food and—though not by any means least—the Ministry of Transport, since the main roads to the South from the Midlands cross over the Valley, and the provision of new roads would mean enormous expense. I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and hope that the Government will gel busy and relieve us from this prolonged suspense. I beg leave to withdrawn my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.