MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 18 April 1879)

§ MR. A. H. BROWN
, in rising to move that a Select Committee be appointed— To inquire into the incidence of rating for water supply and sewerage, and report what amendments, if any, it is advisable to make, said: I feel that the subject is of considerable magnitude, and one which requires a few words of explanation from me. For some years, as many hon. Members know, I have been watching the working of the Public Health Acts, and have endeavoured, if possible, to find remedies for the difficulties, where there appeared to be need of a remedy. I have now to bring before the House a point which I feel sure is one of the great obstacles that prevent the successful working of the Public Health Acts. Sanitary improvement, like every other improvement, cannot, I am afraid, be carried on without money. The way the money is raised for certain sanitary purposes is the reason why I ask for a Committee to investigate the subject. I ask for a Committee to consider the incidence of rating for water supply and drainage, and whether a better incidence of rating cannot be devised. Let me say, at the outset, that I have no intention of raising the question of rating income; what I want is the proper apportionment of the expense on houses and lands. I hope hon. Members who follow me in the debate will keep to the narrow issue I have raised. Sir, the present mode of raising money for sanitary purposes is that an area is taken—such as a parish or borough—and upon that area a rate is laid, which falls equally upon all the property within the area. There is an exception in the case of agricultural land, about which I shall speak presently. In some cases there are special drainage districts; but I shall show that they do not meet the 609 difficulty, and very few have been formed in urban districts. They have the power of making a separate assessment upon a part or parts of the district. Now, if all the property within the area were equally benefited by a sanitary improvement, the plan of levying an equal rate would be fair; but, in almost all cases, some property is not benefited at all, or only in an indirect manner, while other property receives the full benefit. Take the case of a parish with a village, which has to be drained or supplied with water, in the centre or at one end, and with a lot of agricultural land around it. Is it right or fair that all the land should be rated for the drainage or water supply of the village? Or take the case of a parish with two villages, one of which is to be drained or supplied with water; is it right that the other should help to pay for the cost? Or, if you take another case, where a speculative builder has run up a lot of houses, is it right that the cost of draining those houses should be borne by the district? What do we find actually to take place? In parishes where any sanitary improvement is to be effected, there immediately spring up two parties, one for, and the other against, the proposed works, those whoso houses are not going to be benefited objecting to pay for the improvement of their neighbours' property. A case of this sort was mentioned by Colonel Cox, of the Local Government Board, when he gave his evidence before the Select Committee of last year on the Public Health Act Amendment Bill. He said, in answer to a Question put to him— I have one case particularly in my mind that occurred very recently, but it is not by any means an uncommon case. It was a question of supplying with water a small village called Tal-y-Bont in Brecknockshire. The village of Tal-y-Bont was at one end of a contributory place some 12 or 13 miles long; it contains about one-third of the population of the parish; the remaining population—that is to say, the two-thirds not in the village—occupied detached houses and farms. Opposition was most vigorous, and not unnaturally so, on the part of those people. They said, 'We two-thirds have got to put our hands into our pockets and pay for the express benefit of the remaining one-third; and those people whom we are supplying with water are perfectly well able to supply it for themselves, and the whole thing is wrong.' The opposition was extremely fierce and obstinate on those grounds. Many other instances were mentioned by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Bald- 610 wyn Leighton) and others, of villages where the population was scattered over a large area, and where those who were not benefited by the improvements objected to pay. With regard to this state of things, the Committee of last year reported that it was productive of grave evils. The Report says— It frequently happens, notably in rural districts, that the whole charge is borne by the parish, under the rate for special expenses, while the supply of water is limited to the village, or a particular part of the parish. Those, therefore, who live outside the village or the part of the parish benefited by the supply have to pay for the water from which they derive no advantage; this fact causes great opposition to schemes for water supply, and in many cases renders it impossible to carry them out. The same reason prevented the execution of drainage works. The Committee which sat last year had before them the evidence of Dr. Ballard, of the Local Government Board, who was able to mention case after case where villages required draining, and where the public health had suffered in consequence of nothing having been done in the way of drainage. Why was this? The reason was because those who administer the law knew that great opposition would be raised, and not unjustly, if they attempted to levy a rate on all which was only for the benefit of a few. Perhaps I shall be told that what is wrong is the area, and that the area ought to be altered. But in most cases the area is the parish, and to alter the area of a parish for sanitary purposes only is impossible. They are very ancient, and so interwoven with all that we call Local Government, that such an idea has only to be stated to show its impossibility. With regard to urban sanitary districts, they are boroughs, and it would be impossible to alter their areas for this one purpose alone. But I shall be told that there is a provision for making special drainage districts in the rural parts of the country. But these special drainage districts are found, in practice, not to work well. I have made inquiry on this point, and have received information from 105 medical officers of health, who have the supervision of 6,500,000 acres of land and 2,000,000 of the population of this country in 37 out of the counties of England and Wales. Only 26 out of the 105 medical officers were able to say that application had been made to the Local Government Board for the forma- 611 tion of a special drainage district, some of which had been refused. On this subject, the Report of the Committee of last year contained the following observations:— Special districts for drainage and water supply have been in some cases formed, but objections are often raised to the formation of new rating areas, and in some cases special difficulties arise. For instance, when in a village some of the houses have water and some have not, and when these two classes of houses are intermingled. I think I have said enough to show that special drainage districts are not very successful. Let me now deal with the objection that the parish ought to pay, and that it must be treated as a whole. It is argued that the villages contain the labour which is used on the land, and therefore it is fair to tax the farmers for the benefit of the labourers. But this is often not the case. The villages often have a special industry. Take, for instance, a mining country, or suburban places, where the labour belongs to the town. In such cases there is no benefit to the farmers, and their land ought not to be rated. Again, it is said that if the rates do not fall upon the parish no sanitary improvement will take place; and, consequently, disease will spring up, and the poor rates will be increased. The answer to this is that, if you make the incidence of rating fair—which it is not at present—opposition to sanitary works will decrease, and, therefore, the public health will be improved. On this subject, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) said— Then there is the argument that the parish is interested in these improvements, because if they are not made, it will have to pay for medical relief, if not for pauperism. That, I think, is a fallacious argument. The other argument is that the village contains the labour of the district, and, therefore, that the surrounding land ought to pay for it; but that, I think, is as great a fallacy as the other. In the first place, the village does not contain that labour; in my part of the country it hardly ever does; the labour is contained either in the farmhouses or in detached cottages. There are instances of suburban villages where the labour really belongs to the town, and not to the country; but being in the district of the rural authority, it would be thrown upon the parish. Having shown that there is a great opposition to works for sanitary purposes, and that there is nothing in the present law to remove the opposition, I come 612 now to suggest the remedy. In dealing with the question of water supply, the Committee stated in their Report that, after full consideration, they— Think that the sound principle to lay down is that water supplied by a sanitary authority should be paid for by the consumer. It is obvious that a fair charge made directly on the houses benefited will tend to disarm the opposition which now arises on the ground that the cost of the waterworks will be thrown on the rates. Let the same principle be applied to drainage; and when a house is drained, let the cost of the works be a charge upon the house which is benefited. But I shall be told that this would require a great alteration in the law of rating. No doubt this is true; but the principle is not new. The principle is found in the Public Health Act itself as regards nuisances; for the cost of removing a nuisance is borne by the property to be benefited by the removal of it. The same principle is in operation with all Water Companies, for there the cost of water is paid for by the consumers. As regards drainage, we find the same principle adopted in many Acts of Parliament. It is admitted in the Public Health Act; for under the provisions of this Act it is possible to charge the property benefited with the cost of the works in some cases—I mean those cases in which a private improvement rate is levied. It is also admitted in various local Acts, thus pointing conclusively to the policy of extending the principle I contend for into general law. For instance, in the Hereford Improvement Act, 1872, I find the following power to levy sewer rates. I need not read the whole of the section—the important part of it is that— A sewer rate is to be levied upon the houses, lands, and tenements, the drainage of which is connected by pipes with any such sewer or drain; and in order to make it perfectly clear what the rate is for, the section concludes by stating that the rate is to be in lieu of any rates for making sewers under the authority of the Act of 1854. Again, I will quote the case of a large town-Liverpool—where the cost, or part of the cost, of the sewers falls directly upon the house drained by them. The Liverpool Sanitary Act says as follows:— Be it enacted that when and as soon as any such house or building shall drain into or com- 613 municate with any sewer vested in the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses, the owner of such house or building shall pay to the Council a sum after the rate of six shillings for every lineal yard of the frontage of such house or building towards the principal street in which the same shall be situate. I am aware that there are difficulties in the plan adopted in this case; but the principle is the same. Again, to quote from one more Local Act—the Black Rock Local Board Act, 1876, has the same principle with regard to water. A section of the Act is as follows:— The Local Board may demand and take for the supply of water for domestic purposes within the district any rates and charges not exceeding the rates and charges following, that is to say, where the annual rack rent or value of the premises so supplied with water shall not exceed twenty pounds, at a rate per centum per annum not exceeding seven pounds ten shillings. As the power of rating is hero limited to premises supplied with water, it if evident that they cannot rate premises not so supplied; or, in other words, the Board are recouped for their expenditure by charges on the property benefited. I have, I think, now stated enough to show that there is a case for examination by a Select Committee; but I have noticed that there have been several allegations against the principle I have laid down, and these I will now glance at. First, it is alleged that the proposal would exempt agricultural land from rating, and that already this class of property is partially exempt, being rated at only one-fourth of its value. The answer to that is this—that each rate should be considered on its own merits, and in relation to the public good to be effected; and it is no answer to say that one can be put off against the other. But I may further point out that in boroughs, where the expenses are defrayed by the borough fund, agricultural land is rated at its full value, and contributes its full share of the burdens of the borough. Again, it is said that it would destroy the security on which money has been lent—I mean the security of the rates of the whole district. But that is not the case, for the rates of the whole district would be the ultimate security, though the rates on the property benefited would be, as now, the first asset for the repayment of the interest and principal of the mortgage. With reference to the objection that, under the proposal I make, the 614 areas might be very small, and therefore the rating might be high, I think the objection is a good one in those cases where, from various circumstances, the cost must be great; and therefore I think it would be necessary to put a limit of charge upon the property benefited, and any excess of charge should fall as it does now. This is a difficult and technical subject, and I am afraid I have failed to put it clearly before the House. But I think it is worth investigating, and therefore I ask for a Committee.

§ SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON
, who seconded the Amendment, held that an alteration of the law was needed, for the reason, among others, that at present the charges for drainage weighed very unequally upon owners of house property, those who laid out money on their holdings having to pay as much pro rata as careless and improvident landlords. The consequence of the present state of affairs was that there was a very strong feeling of injustice, and, in many cases, of virtual stoppage of all improvements. Representations of the injustice of this incidence had been made from numerous sanitary authorities to the Local Government Board. A list of some 20 or 30 places was given before the Select Committee of last year on the Public Health Act Amendment Bill, and these were a mere selection of cases. There was not a county in England, probably not a union, where the injustice had not been felt so strongly as to prevent improvements being proceeded with. That was the uniform experience of all engaged in the subject as appeared from the evidence of the Select Committee already referred to. He maintained that in former years there was very little principle underlying these rates, although lately there had been what he might describe as more scientific accuracy, as shown in the obligations which had been imposed upon the ratepayers with respect to education, roads, and sanitary improvements. The principle of the incidence of rating was a haphazard one; and, as regarded this sanitary rating, it was the application of the urban principle of the Acts of 1848 and 1858 to rural places, whence the injustice. A village that had been improved, that had water laid on, and drainage provided, was called upon to contribute to the improvement of another village five 615 miles off, where the landlords had neglected all sanitary provision; and, although the Act provided for the land only paying one-fourth, the farmhouse on the land paid the whole rate; so that the distant ratepayer, who was in no degree benefited, was called on to pay double or treble what an occupier living in a similar house paid for that house being improved. It was impossible to conceive a greater injustice than what sometimes occurred in this manner. The proper and only principle to adopt was that the incidence of the rate should show the benefit of the use. He entirely denied that this was a question between town and country. There was hardly a rural district in England where they did not find another population living in the villages besides the agricultural labourers. There were mining populations and others, people engaged in staple manufactures like the shoe and straw trades, who were altogether separate from the agricultural population. This was a question of getting necessary improvements made, and those improvements could not be made without an alteration in legislation. He hoped the House would not refuse to allow the matter to be fairly sifted before a Select Committee, as the subject was of more importance than was generally supposed.

§ MR. WHITWELL
observed, that, so far, the urban populations had derived great benefit from the legislation of the last few years. The difficulty was to find the means for giving a supply of water to those places where it could not be provided by any general system of rating, but where it was required for sanitary purposes. In certain localities private arrangements existed whereby a small area was exempted from the taxation which fell on all the district around, simply because some centuries ago there was a reason for such exemption, which 616 reason was now entirely removed. Sooner or later these exemptions must be dealt with. He thought a case had been made out for a Select Committee; but it should not inquire into the general question of rating, as that was one which demanded the consideration of the Government. He cordially supported the Motion of his hon. Friend.

MR. SĆLATER-BOOTH
said, that, owing to the extreme thinness of the House, he must defer going into the subject at length. In his judgment, the House would do well to pause before it embarked on so extensive a subject as the hon. Member had brought forward. It was, no doubt, a fact that the Public Health Act that passed in 1875 was by no means a final measure. He did not propose it in that sense. He quite admitted that it was capable of amendment, and thought that the incidence of sewerage and other sanitary charges might with advantage be inquired into from time to time; but the subject was so large and the House so scanty that he must apologize if he did not go into the question at the length which it deserved. The subject had certainly been introduced in too large a sense in the present instance; and it covered so much ground that he thought it would be mischievous for the House to deal with it in the form in which it had been introduced. Though the Sanitary Acts had not been long in operation, the expense which had been incurred under them was enormous and increasing; and it was therefore natural that there should be objections felt to proposals which might involve still further outlays. One would fancy, to hear his hon. Friend, that no money had been applied to sanitary purposes in rural districts; but, as a matter of fact, in the six years ending in 1878 no less a sum than £680,000 had been borrowed for that purpose by the rural authorities. He believed there was a general disposition throughout the country to recognize the common liability and responsibility which the ratepayers of each parish were under with regard to the health and welfare of the poorer inhabitants of the parish, and there was a readiness to accept the obligation, which, after all, was made comparatively light, by means of borrowing and repayments over extended periods. The value of land was enormously increased by drainage operations, for the construction of sewers benefited, not only 617 the houses drained, but the land of the whole district. He was willing to admit there was something in what the hon. Member had brought forward. If rating for water supply were separated from rating for sewerage, there was a good deal to be said for rating the consumers of water differently from those who were benefited only by its provision for sanitary purposes; but the injustice which might have resulted from an unqualified system of rating was remedied by an Act, passed at the instance of the hon. Member last year, which came into operation only a month ago, so that it was rather too soon to re-open the question now. There were particular cases in which a house tax of a limited amount might, in like manner, be brought in in aid of the rates; and he would be willing to take the responsibility of making a proposal, when they had a little breathing-time, to discuss some of these local questions, which, unfortunately, they had not had during the last two or three years. But the question was not so pressing and urgent as to justify him in dealing with it now. He could not separate this Motion from a wider proposal contained in the 6th clause of a Bill introduced by the hon. Member, to whom he would put it whether it would not be more desirable to drop the subject for this Session and re-introduce it on a smaller scale next year? The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, if adopted, would in many cases be antagonistic to the object he had in view. The House would probably be of opinion that the hon. Gentleman had called attention to a very important and difficult subject; but it was one which was not lost sight of by his Department or himself.