§ [SECOND READING.]
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ MR. HUDSON (Hertfordshire, Hitchin)said he desired to enter a protest against the Second Reading of this Bill, in order that it might not be thought to have had the approval of those interested in the question of Hertford water. The Hertford unions and local authorities of that part of Hertford which he represented were strongly opposed to this Bill, as was also the Hertfordshire County Council. The hon. Member for Mid Hertfordshire was no doubt in favour of the Bill; but what most people in Hertford felt was that every water company which began supplying water in Hertford extended their field of operations, and eventually undertook to supply other counties with Hertford water. This particular company was now supplying one-third of the water which they obtained from Hertford to Hertford villages, and two-thirds to 552 Middlesex. Hertford had been so drained by the two water companies which now took their water from the Lea Valley as to be almost denuded of water. He had no desire to prevent Hertford people from having Hertford water, but he did object to Hertford water being taken away and sold to other counties. The: county of Hertford had been compelled to spend no less than £27,000 in defence of its water. He had said enough to show that Hertfordshire was strongly opposed to the Bill, and he would reserve his right to oppose it in Committee upstairs.
§ MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)said considering the friendly attitude of his hon. friend the Member for the Hitchin Division of Hertford it was almost unnecessary for him to say anything on this matter. He would merely point out that the Bill did not propose to impoverish Hertfordshire for the supply of Middlesex. Of the parishes they proposed to supply eight of the twelve were Hertfordshire villages, which meant that two-thirds of the water taken would be supplied to Hertford. Those who promoted this Bill would be content to consider any reasonable grievance that Hertfordshire people might bring before the Committee upstairs, to which he hoped this Bill would be sent, and which was the only competent tribunal to decide these matters. He hoped that the Bill would now be read a second time.
§ MR. BAMFORD SLACK (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said as representing that part of Barnet which was in Hertfordshire it was within his knowledge that the inhabitants were urgently in need of a constant, regular, and increased supply of water, and that supply could only at present be obtained through the agency of this company. The District Councils of Barnet and Finchley had asked the Company to afford a "constant" supply of water, and he therefore asked the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, and his constituents the water of which they were so urgently in need.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.