§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. F. W. WILSON (Norfolk, Mid)I have to ask the indulgence of the House on rising to show cause why this Water Bill should not be read a second time. It is an attempt by a body of London 247 gentlemen to capture a water area in Norfolk against the wishes and remonstrances of the local authorities. It is proposed to annex an area 10 miles long and seven wide in an agricultural district and to secure the water rights over 40,000 acres for five years. This is to be done with the limited capital of £16,000, and I say that that is utterly inadequate for such a purpose. The local bodies of the district affected have vehemently protested against the proposed annexation. The governing body of the district is the Parish Council, which has met and passed a Resolution against the scheme. This Resolution has been confirmed by a town's meeting, practically with unanimity. There might have been here and there a dissentient, but practically the meeting was unanimous. The District Council has also protested against the annexation of the water, and has taken formal proceedings to oppose the Bill. I ask the House is it fair to take away the right of public bodies in the way in which it is proposed by this Bill? Parliament has just conferred upon the country districts Local Government, and their representatives are willing and anxious to do their duty, and I ask why the proper legitimate local authority should be required, under these circumstances, to hand over their right to their own water supply to the promoters of this Bill—to a private monopoly? It is quite true that at Maidstone, recently, there has been a terrible epidemic of typhoid fever, but in that case the water supply was in the hands of a private company. But in the district of Wymondham we prefer to have the control of our own water supply in our own hands. This matter rather comes by surprise upon us; we have had hardly time to raise the question before we have to oppose the scheme before the House. If the House, as the promoters ask, pass the Second Reading and refer the Bill to a Private Committee, we shall at once be put to a very large expense, from which we ask the House to save us, as the district concerned is poor and depressed. This Bill has been promoted entirely from London; it has been introduced into the House by one of the hon. Members for Finsbury and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Stretford Division of Lancashire; but I want to know why the hon. Baronet should wish to 248 thrust his water scheme upon us. The promoters of the Bill will probably express their willingness to submit a clause with reference to purchase, but we have seen what clauses of that kind meant. I remember a few Sessions ago I attended a Committee which was dealing with a Bill in which the corporation of a little town sought to purchase and have control of its own water supply, and they had to pay an enormous sum—something like £14 or £15 per head of population. It is not well, therefore, to let private persons secure these valuable monopolies. The water supply of this district is mainly derived from wells, and occasionally some of these wells have been found unsanitary and unsatisfactory, and it has been necessary to close them. In that direction the local authorities have done, and, no doubt, will continue to do, their duty. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I based my opposition to this Bill on the broad principle that the supply of water should be in the hands of the local authorities, and where the local authorities are willing to undertake that supply it should not be handed over to a private Company. As this House has extended local government to the country districts, I consider that what has been given them by one hand they should not be deprived of by another, and I therefore appeal to the House, in the interest of local government, not to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. The District Council has done everything it is called upon to do, and I have no doubt it will carry out an effective scheme, if necessary, for providing a water supply.
§ *THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. AILWYN E. FELLOWES,) Hunts, RamseyI rise to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, and I do so simply as a disinterested party, for, although I have lived in the neighbourhood most of my life, I have not lived in the district actually affected by the Bill. I can fully bear out every word that has been said by my hon. Friend Mr. Wilson as regards the feeling in the district, and of the population of the town of Wymondham, in regard to the Measure. The Parish Council is unanimous in its opposition to the Bill; the District Council, I am informed on good authority, is also opposed to it. The townspeople, in a 249 meeting six weeks ago, and again last Monday week, were unanimous in their opposition to the provisions of the Bill, and I believe there is not a single East Anglian Member who will speak in favour of the Bill, or vote in its favour. I always held, when this House established Parish and District Councils, it was because they considered these local authorities would be the best bodies to set up in the different districts; and when it sees there is practical unanimity among all the different councils of this district of Wymondham against this Bill, I hope the House will pause before it gives a Second Reading to the Bill. But there is another circumstance in connection with this matter which should be brought before the House. It seems to be rather strange that a small town like Wymondham, standing in the midst of a purely agricultural district, should be attacked in this way by four absolute strangers to the county. These four gentlemen have nothing on earth to do with the county of Norfolk, in which they propose to start this company. I find from a London directory that one is connected with a coal company in London. This gentleman a few years since bought a piece of land near Wymondham, on which he built three or four cottages. The second gentleman is connected with a firm of artesian well-sinkers. The third is a coal merchant, and also connected with artesian well-sinkers; and the fourth gentleman is a consulting engineer in London. Well, we are very grateful to these gentleman for coming down to our county, but at the same time we think; it rather hard that they should come down and propose this scheme in direct opposition to the population of the district concerned. It is stated in the preamble of the Bill that there is no proper or adequate water supply for the parish of Wymondham and the district. All I can say is that the principal ground of the objection of the inhabitants of Wymondham is that there is a good supply, and that water is easily procurable. The feeling is so strong that the Parish Council and the District Council appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, and having made a house-to-house investigation, they discovered that, in the majority of cases, the water supply was both good and abundant. I know very well that 250 there have been a few cases of illness in Wymondham, and in the district around, but the wells which have been found unsatisfactory have been closed by the order of the District Council, and I am perfectly certain that the present Wymondham Council will do everything in its power to put a stop to the use of bad wells. The people hold that if waterworks are to be started in that district, they should be started by their own District Council. It may be urged that the Bill should be allowed to obtain a Second Reading, and go to a Committee upstairs. To adopt this course, however, would be a little hard on the district of Wymondham, which would be then compelled to spend £700 or £800 in opposing the Bill upstairs. They cannot afford to spend that sum of money. I trust this House will support the local authority, and throw out the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed—
That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."—(Mr. F. W. Wilson.)
§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)As one of the members whose names are on the back of the Bill, and as one who has no pecuniary interest in its passage, I think I can show the House strong reasons why the Bill should be read a second time. So far from there being any attempt to capture the water area, it is only right the House should know that as far back as 1894 there were a number of complaints of the outbreak of enteric fever in the district, and in 1896 the same state of things was reported to the Local Government Board. The promoters of this Bill, whether coal merchants or sinkers of artesian wells, are entitled to the same justice as every other promoter who brings a Private Bill before the House, and I may here say the promoters have already offered to insert a clause, which has been submitted for sanction to the Speaker's counsel, giving to the local authority purchasing powers; therefore, anything has been done, as far as they are concerned, to meet the objections of the local authority. The local authority has not pledged itself, either to the Local Government Board or to those in charge of the Bill, that it is prepared to bring in a Bill, and I think it should weigh with the House that the Local Government Board are prepared to show that 251 this rural authority has done nothing with regard to the water supply. I was astonished to see on a whip issued to hon. Members the name of a former head of the Local Government Board, who belongs himself to the medical profession. He is endeavouring to prevent a Bill from passing, the object of which is to bring a pure water supply into a district which does not at present enjoy it. If the local authority are in any way desirous to get inserted a clause giving them purchasing powers, it can be inserted, if the House will agree to the Second Reading, and adjourn the Bill for a month, so that all further expense will be obviated. After the terrible results from an impure water supply at Maidstone and King's Lynn, and in face of the fact that the Local Government Board have before them proofs of the absolute negligence of the local authorities, I feel certain the House will agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ MR. D. F. GODDARD (Ipswich)I should like to say a few words in support of the Motion against the Second Reading of this Bill. I think the grounds already stated are good and sufficient for the rejection of the Bill. It would seem from the speech to which the House has just listened that there is something defective about the water supply in this district, but there has been no evidence in support of that contention. So far as I can ascertain, there are in this district 212 wells. These have been all examined; some few have been found doubtful, and some have been condemned as not to be used for drinking water purposes, but there still remain 200 wells which are considered thoroughly satisfactory and sufficient for the district which they are intended to supply. But, apart from the general ground, there is another ground for rejecting this Bill. There is no attempt to give a constant supply of water by the promoting company. All they undertake to do is to supply water where they can supply from a reservoir by gravitation, and unless they put the reservoir at the highest point of Wymondham it is absolutely certain there must be a good many people in that district who can never be supplied by pure gravitation. It appears to me to be altogether wrong. If we 252 are to give this company great powers, they, on their side, should be prepared to give a constant water supply. Then, I think, the charges are excessive. If a man has a house rateably valued at £8 a year, this company propose to saddle him with a charge of 4d. a week, or 17s. 4d. a year, or nearly 11 per cent. on his rateable value, while in most towns the charge is only 5 per cent., and in a few 7 per cent. The hon. Member has referred to the outbreaks of enteric fever in the years 1894 and 1896, but I find from the returns for 1894 that the death rate per thousand in the district was only 14.64. Surely that is not sufficient to warrant the closing of the present water supply and handing it over to a company of private monopolists? With reference to the proposed purchasing clause, there is the question how long before it can come into effect—[An HON. MEMBER: Five years.]—and when it does come into effect what is the price which the local authority will have to pay for it? I have had some personal experience in this matter. The Ipswich Corporation many years ago disposed of their water rights to a private company, and I need not say the company flourished very well indeed, paying its maximum dividends. But in 1867, when the Corporation proposed to buy back the water rights, the price mentioned as likely to be required was £100,000. That price was thought too high, but when we moved in the matter again in 1887 the price was between £160,000 and £170,000, and when I, in 1891, raised the question again in the Ipswich Corporation, the price asked was £213,000, and ultimately it was purchased for £200,000. The effect to the ratepayers during the past two years is that this undertaking supplies £1,000 a year in relief of the rates, notwithstanding the high price that had to be paid for the undertaking. If a local authority parts with their rights, it is perfectly certain, whenever they want to purchase them back, the ratepayers will have to pay through the nose. On that ground alone this Bill should, I think, be rejected. I shall be interested to know what the Local Government Board have to say on this question, as the local authorities are all agreed in their opposition to the Bill. I shall support the Motion for its rejection.
*MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)We all know that, in the Eastern Counties the rainfall is very small, and that often great difficulties are experienced in obtaining a water supply. Now here is a company which proposes to supply a certain district with water. The inhabitants of Wymondham are not obliged to take the water from this company. The hon. Member for Huntingdonshire made merry over the promoters of the Bill, but I must point out that one of the promoters has recently built houses in this district, and obviously the genesis of the Bill was that the gentleman, on arriving in the district, found that its sanitary state was not satisfactory, and consequently himself proposed, with the assistance of some water engineers, to offer the inhabitants a supply of water. The hon. Member for Ipswich referred to the situation of the reservoir, the charges for the water, and the price which the local authority might, perhaps, have to pay, if eventually they wished to purchase the water company's undertaking: but these are eminently matters for the Committee, or for settlement outside the House. I think I am justified in reading to the House extracts supplied to the Local Government Board by the local medical officer of health, who stated that in 1894 there was a serious outbreak of fever in this district, and that it was distinctly traced to drinking impure water. Yet the local authority did absolutely nothing. In 1896 the local officer of health, reported that samples of the wells of Wymondham had been sent to the county analyst, and that he condemned these samples as impure and unfit for drinking purposes, and yet that water is still being drunk by the people in this district. They were samples taken from a certain number of wells. I do think that with the report of the Local Medical Authority sent up to the Local Government Board, not once, but, twice, calling public attention to the state of matters in that part of the country.—the House would be taking upon itself, in view of the lamentable outbreaks which the hon. Members have heard of in the county of Norfolk, which 254 had occurred at Maidstone and other places, outbreaks due to the insufficient and impure supply of water—I say that this House would be taking upon itself a responsibility which I am not prepared to advise anyone to take in connection with this Bill. I do not deny that there are many points contained in the Bill which a Committee upstairs ought thoroughly to thresh out and possibly alter, but I seriously ask the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill and not take upon its shoulders so grave a responsibility as to reject a Bill of this sort in view of the serious circumstances to which I have called attention. The promoters in my presence made an offer to those who represented the opposition here to-day in which they declared that they were ready to insert in their Bill any clause proposed by the opponents of the Bill, which was of a reasonable character for purchasing the undertaking of the promoters. The hon. Member for Ipswich called attention to the enormous and greatly enhanced value which the Ipswich Water Company placed upon their undertaking. This is an example which the hon. members will be able to avoid, because by noting what occurred in this case they will be able to foresee any possible rise or increase in the value of the undertaking of such a company as this, and means might be taken by the opponents of this Bill in the drafting of the clauses to obviate any such increased value. Sir, I won't detain the House any longer. I thought it my duty—as being responsible to some extent for the placing before the House, on an occasion such as this of the facts connected with a private Hill—to lay them seriously before the House and to ask if to consider whether it will undertake under these circumstances the grave responsibility of rejecting a Bill such as that which is now before us.
§ MR. SAMUEL HOARE (Norwich)As one somewhat interested in Committee work upstairs, it has usually been my lot to agree with what the Chairman has laid down for our guidance. I only regret, that on this occasion I must express my opinion, and a strong one, that there are matters in this Bill which should, not come under the cognisance of the Committee, but should be settled 255 down here, by the House itself. I feel that the Bill is one—although it refers only to a small area in which I am interested, though not in the area—which refers to matters of very great importance, and which would I think be a very serious matter if it were allowed to pass a Second Reading and go up to Committee. I am not going into the details of the position beyond the fact that we must bear in mind that the Sanitary Authority of that district are unanimously against this Bill, and they have expressed their readiness to bring in and carry out whatever may be necessary for the supplying of pure water to this district. I am not going into the facts as to whether there may not be some wells in that district which have given rise to illness, but the House must bear in mind that the death rate is only 14 per thousand, that the outbreaks were half-a-mile apart, and that one of these districts is not marked in the map of the districts which this Company intends to supply with water. But what I do want to bring before the House are two clauses in the Bill, and on account of those two clauses I trust the House will not pass the Second Reading of the Bill. The clauses I allude to are Clauses 5 and 6. I will not read them and so weary the House. Suffice it to say that in Clause 5 there are 16 villages surrounding Wymondham, four or five of which do not touch Wymondham, but which are some six miles away, which are to be brought under the scope of this Bill; and the next clause states that if this Company does not give the necessary supply of water to these villages, after five years these villages may apply for the necessary power in order to supply their district with water. Now I want the House to consider what they will do if they pass a Bill like this, or a similar Bill? They will give power—let us call it by a word better known—a concession, to four gentlemen in London. One of them has four small houses in the district, but certainly does not reside there himself. It would give them a concession which would be in force for five years and would give them the control of any arrangement that might be made for the better supply of water, not only for the town of Wymondham, but also over these 16 villages. Now I did expect that 256 the promoters of this Bill would have told us what is the view of these 16 villages on the subject. I would ask hon. Gentlemen living in the country to put themselves in this position; if Bills of this character are easy to pass their Second Reading in this House, those who live in their own village, and who are endeavouring to supply their poor people with better water, what would be their position when you find that four London gentlemen holding a hundred pound shares have power over your village, and could interfere with your carrying out your improvements for five years. I should like to know how this scheme can be carried out in the case of 16 straggling villages a long distance apart? How are they to arrange to supply their fraction of this undertaking? I quite agree that it is important, not only in our rural districts, that we should do all we can in this House to secure a better supply of water to our poor. It may be that the Wymondham supply is not as perfect as it should be, but the authorities say that they are ready to do all that is necessary. I say we all feel that there is a great responsibility in it. Why, Mr. Speaker, should this House give powers to the sanitary authority of the District Council to meet these difficulties in their own locality, and to do what is necessary? It seems to me that if we pass this Bill we are throwing away a great deal of that self-government which we have placed in their hands. We give them the power in their own locality to do what is necessary, and then, forsooth, they tell us these four gentlemen from London come and say they will do it. I do not know whether there will be any remarks from the Local Government Board in reference to this matter. If it were possible for them to say that they had satisfied themselves that there was an obstinacy—which I do not believe exists in any part of the country—that the local authorities had ignored their responsibility, I should not take the part I do in this discussion. It is because we have given them responsibility; because we have no evidence whatever that they are not prepared to carry out those responsibilities that I feel that it is not a matter that should be handed over to a Committee, and I shall certainly vote for the rejection of this Bill.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)It seems to me rather curious that we should be discussing seriously the proposition whether two local bodies are to be coerced in this House on the part, of four gentlemen who are company promoters in London. Well, if I had not heard this Debate, I should have said beforehand that a proposition of this kind would have been scouted from the House with almost unanimous consent. Now, Sir, I look at Clause 4, and I find that it contains the names of the four gentlemen in London who will have nothing to do but go round the country and pump from any district they like and then audaciously come to this House and ask us to give them powers over the heads of the local elected body. A proposition of this kind should be scouted from the House. Another thing that must surprise everybody in connection with this Bill is that the Chairman of Ways and Means has drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there have been two outbreaks of enteric fever in this district. That, of course, is a serious matter, especially in view of the similar outbreaks in districts not very far remote. But the Chairman of Ways and Means forgot to give us the information which we have just heard from a Member from close to the district—namely, that this terrible state of devastation has only caused a death-rate of 14 per thousand. I should be glad to hear that the healthy districts in England were as well off as these districts. Have we come to this, that the rule for dealing with this state of things is to hold these local bodies helpless, and take the control out of their hands. Well, Sir, I have never heard of a more audacious proposition in my life. I think the Local Government Board ought to use every pressure upon the local authorities to do the work which belongs to them, and I think it would be a base surrender, and a dangerous surrender on the part of this House to give power to company promoters of doing the work of local committees and local authorities.
§ *SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)I think it only right to state why I am induced to take the somewhat uncommon course of opposing a Private Bill of this nature. In the first place, I 258 think I never heard a weaker case put before the House for interfering with a local authority in reference to its duties. In the second place, I object to the Bill because it will form a precedent which I think will be exceedingly dangerous as regards local government generally. The grant of the right of supplying water to a district affects not only the immediate supply of the water to that district, but is the concession of a valuable right which really belongs to the local authority. If a property of this kind which in time, as you know, may increase by hundreds of thousands of pounds in value, is to be given away on a case like this—is to be taken out of the control of the local inhabitants and placed in the hands of vendors who come from London, then, I say, local government will receive a severe blow if this Bill is passed. As regards the medical aspect the position is this. There have been two epidemics of typhoid—so-called epidemics—since 1894. In the first epidemic of typhoid there were nine cases in a place which, I believe, is outside the area proposed to be supplied by this Company. Of those seven occurred in one house. The death-rate at that time in Wymondham from typhoid fever was as low as it is at the present time, and was described by the Medical Officer of Health as a low death-rate from zymotic diseases. He said: "It is the lowest death-rate I have recorded." Moreover, that death-rate has not increased since then, and that was in 1894. In the year 1896, after the Parish Councils Act came into authority, and the District Council was created, the death-rate remained the same—that is, 0.36 per thousand, which the Medical Officer describes as a low death-rate. Under these circumstances the case of medical necessity for interference in the district falls to the ground. The death-rate is a low one for zymotic diseases, and there have only been two cases of typhoid fever recently in the district. The Chairman of Ways and Means said the local authorities did nothing, but that is not so, for they immediately closed the contaminated well which was the cause of the first outbreak. The House was told that the local authority had not done its duty, but it has been doing its duty in looking after the 200 wells in this district. Is a district like 259 this to be condemned and given away to the promoters of a public company in this way? Why, every rural district is open to the same danger. You have a right, particularly in any district where the supply depends on surface wells, to the use of them. The majority of rural districts in England are supplied in this way. If in this case we hand over the water supply, we may prepare to do it in all. Well now, Sir, I think, in the interest of local government, we ought to resist this Bill. If the Local Government Board had regarded this as a very grave case we should have had an inquiry into the circumstances. But there has been no local inquiry. Disease was never so rife in this district as to require an inquiry, and the Local Government Board has not exercised its powers of forcing the local authority to provide a common water supply. Until that has been attempted, or some graver evidence shown as to the requirements of this district, I believe the House will do wrong to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, It would create a precedent for these water raids being made into rural districts and public property being taken away from the body which ought to have it, and the only body which ought to be allowed to have it. If local government is to be as effective as it ought to be, it is the Council or Sanitary Authority in the rural district which should supply the water. In the interests of the inhabitants I shall vote against the Second Reading, and vote for giving them the right of governing their own district in their own way.
§ Question put, Amendment agreed to.
§ Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Second Reading put off for six months.