HC Deb 30 June 1908 vol 191 cc717-28

(By ORDER).

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

DR. RUTHERFORD (Middlesex, Brentford)

moved that the Bill be recommitted. He said the instruction he had put on the Paper was on behalf of a small neighbouring town, composed almost entirely of working-class people, and he moved it on their behalf because the water charges were excessive there. He wished to speak on behalf of the Southall Urban District, Council. They did not wish to delay the Bill, and they did not desire to inconvenience any other districts supplied by this water company, but they had a serious grievance, which he would try and put before the House. To prove that this was a working-class district, in 1905, out of 2,911 properties, 2,457 were assessed at£20 and under. He understood that the question of excessive charges was going to be made a ground of opposition in the House of Lords by the Middlesex County Council, and if the Middlesex County Council said the charges were excessive, Southall, he thought, had all the more reason to feel that way. The present charges for water for domestic purposes were 8½per cent. on the rateable value. The Bill provided that it should be 7½per cent., but it was not an inclusive charge, and did not include baths, etc. The Metropolitan Water Board charges were 5 per cent. on the rateable value. The demand of Southall was that they should be charged at the same rate as the Water Board charged, but they were prepared to accept 7½per cent., if it were an inclusive charge. When the matter was debated in Committee upstairs, Southall representatives offered to accept this, but they thought it was an inclusive charge, and as they now found it was not he asked the House to recommit the Bill. For water for public purposes the present charge was 1s. 3d. per 1,000 gallons, and under the Bill the same charge stood. The Metropolitan Water Board was only charging 6d., and the Southall Council demanded that they should have the same charge. But they were prepared to give way, and to meet this company, and to accept an average charge of 9d., that would be 6d. less than they were at present paying, So far as water for trade use was concerned the Bill provided that the charge should be 2s. This was very important, because the cost at present stood at 2s., and it affected the manufacturers at Southall most injuriously. The margarine works at Southall had found the cost of water to be so severe a strain on them that they had actually sunk their own wells and found their own water. This led to a reduction of the assessment and a loss to the local rates. He was informed, on the best evidence, that two manufacturers proposed to buy land in Southall to establish large factories there, and they were just on the completion of the purchase when they inquired into the water rate, and they found it was so great, for trade purposes, that they threw up the negotiations and declined to entertain them any more. This Bill, in its present form, damned Southall for trade and manufacturing purposes so long as it stood, and he hoped under the circumstances the House would think it reasonable to recommit the Bill. In a paper got out by the promoters, they suggested several reasons for the acceptance of the House and several why the Bill should not be recommitted. They said— The promoters accept loyally the decision of the Committee. Of course they did, because they had got practically all they asked for. His feeling was that the Committee had given away the consumers, and had too much considered the owners. The promoters further said that it was somewhat unusual for a Bill to be recommitted. He thought the Committee had made a grievous mistake, and sacrificed the public interest for the private company's. The promoters also said— The Southall Council have their remedy in the second House. That was a strange doctrine to preach to this Parliament, that any public authority should have to find salvation in the House of Lords, and he trusted that the Southall Council would not be put to the serious cost and expense of appealing to the House of Lords. The promoters also urged that the interests of Southall were carefully considered upstairs, and there was a clause to protect them. The council, however, thought that instead of protecting it was practically strangling Southall. Further, the promoters said that the representative of the Southall Council had practically accepted the agreement, and said it would be satisfactory to the council. But when he accepted that agreement he understood that the charge of 7½per cent. would be inclusive, and afterwards he found it was not. The Committee were under some misapprehension. He believed the hon. Member for Stoke would be able to speak more clearly than he could as to what happened in the Committee upstairs. The council felt that the charge for baths was contrary to all laws of science and health, and Parliament laid down this principle quite distinctly and clearly last year, when they granted an Act to the Metropolitan Water Board, in which this provision was made statutory. He understood the promoters also said that they could not afford to reduce their rates. Well, if they could not afford to do that, their business was to make way for those who could. The Water Board already supplied part of Southall, and naturally the council preferred that the Board should supply the whole of their area. If the Government would meet the Southall Council satisfactorily along the lines he had mentioned, they were prepared to come to terms with the promoters and to make the best of the matter. He trusted, for the reputation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that he would support the contention he had tried to lay before the House, and that, for the reputation of the House, they would not sacrifice the interests of public authorities and of the community to the interests of a private company.

MR. JOHN WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)

seconded. He was one of the members of the Committee appointed to consider the proposals contained in the Bill. With almost every remark of the hon. Member for Brentford he entirely agreed. During the early part of the consideration of the measure, the Committee came to the conclusion chat the company was a very shaky concern and had never performed its legal and statutory obligations in any shape or form, but unfortunately it had a great area of population under its control. The Committee took that into consideration, although he believed the preamble was only proved by the casting vote of the Chairman, who voted first also on the first division. While the Committee felt inclined, on the evidence presented to them as to the business methods of this company, to reject the preamble of the Bill, yet they felt it would place the locality in so serious a position that they could not take the responsibility. The company was a sort of one-man show. He thought a gentleman of the name of Howard first got the concession, and gradually it had been extended and certain powers had been secured, and either never used or not carried out to their proper extent. The locality had had very good and serious reason to complain of the way in which the company had treated them for a long time. Southall was the only working-class district within the company's jurisdiction, and the great difficulty was that the Metropolitan Water Board supplied part of the neighbourhood at a uniform rate of 5 per cent. inclusive. The Bill passed through the House in 1906 made a uniform charge all over the Metropolitan Water Board area, and there was now a peculiar position of affairs. Here was a part of this working class neighbourhood supplied at an inclusive charge of 5 per cent, and if the proposals of the Southall Council, of 7½per cent., were agreed to there would be a difference of 2½per cent. Not satisfied with this 2½per cent, more than the Metropolitan Water Board charges, which were inclusive, the company wanted to charge, in addition, extra for baths and public service, and for half a dozen other things. His opinion was, having considered the whole subject, that the company ought to be well satisfied, seeing that the Metropolitan Water Board supplied a portion of the district for a uniform and inclusive charge of 5 per cent. The unfortunate part of the business of this Bill was that even if the recommendation of the hon. Member for Brentford were carried out, there would be one part of the locality of Southall supplied at the uniform and inclusive charge of 5 per cent., and the remaining part at 7½per cent. The Committee agreed to that, and so did the Southall Council, but it appeared that the Committee mentioned that they were prepared to apply to this locality the Sunningdale agreement. The company supplied Sunningdale, and some of them thought that meant an inclusive charge of 7½per cent., and the Southall District Council thought so also. But the counsel for the company soon informed them that the Sunningdale agreement was not only a charge of 7½per cent. on the whole locality, but in addition these extras. A division of the Committee took place with reference to that, and he was not prepared to say what the decision of the Committee was regarding it, but it was eventually decided by a majority that these extras should be included in the Bill. Unless the company were prepared to accept the 7½per cent, he thought the House would be well advised to recommit the Bill.

Amendment proposed— To leave out all the words after the word 'be,' and add the words 're-committed to the former Committee.'"—(Dr. Rutherford.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out 'stand part of the Question."

MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster)

said that in regard to the reference made by the hon. Member for Stoke to the financial stability of this water company, he (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) was not in a position to criticise those remarks, but it seemed to him that they were an argument against the Committee granting the Bill to the company at all, and not an argument in favour of what was now proposed, of giving exceptional treatment to one of the eight local authority areas concerned, by this instruction now before the House. He understood that the Bill was four days before a competent Committee. The point now at issue was thoroughly thrashed out, and counsel and witnesses were heard, and all the arguments, which could not perhaps be put so fully to the House that night, were placed before the Committee, and the Committee came to a certain decision on grounds which appealed to the Committee and under circumstances which generally appealed to the House, to support a Committee's decision. Now an hon. Member came, and by placing before the House arguments which he thought it was impossible for the House really to examine, endeavoured to maintain the claim he was unable to substantiate before the Committee. It was a very serious matter for the House on such a very cursory and superficial examination of the subject, to upset the careful and considered judgment of one of its Committees in this way. It was still more serious that the House, without being able thoroughly to examine the clauses of the Bill, should take upon itself to give special treatment to one of eight areas which were dealt with in the Bill, and especially as that special area had already had a large concession made to it by Clause 25. It would seriously interfere with the efficient progress of business in regard to Private Bills if the considered judgment of the Committee, based on four days careful examination, was to be upset by what he was bound to call—although he had no doubt they were perfectly sincere—ex parte statements.

MR. WATERLOW (Islington, N.)

said he was one of the members of this Committee, and wished to say a few words on the Question. The issue was very clear. It was that this particular district of Southall should be put on the same terms as the Metropolitan Water Board supplied to the surrounding and neighbouring districts.

DR. RUTHERFORD

I said distinctly that we were prepared to accept more moderate and inclusive terms. We were prepared to meet the company half way.

MR. WATERLOW

said that that might be so, but the House had to deal with the Amendment on the Paper, and if it were carried it would be an instruction to the Committee to do certain things, and consequently, although Southall might be willing to accept other terms than on the Paper, the position was as he had stated. The House would give certain definite instructions to the Committee, and the Committee would be bound to accept those instructions. The issue was the Metropolitan Water Board terms as against the terms granted to Southall. With reference to the divisions on the Committee; they had only two, and neither of them was relative to this issue. He cordially sympathised with the position of Southall; it was undoubtedly a difficult one, as it was bounded on two and nearly three sides by the Metropolitan Water Board. There was no doubt that if that Board were willing to take over Southall, and this company were willing to surrender it, that would be the most satisfactory solution for Southall. But there was no power for the Board to take away this district from the existing company, and there was no power in the hands of the Committee to take this particular area and put it in the hands of the Water Board. He did not know if they would have it, even if Southall's present company were willing to hand it over. Southall was certainly to be sympathised with; it had the Water Board's mains running right through its areas, and the largest reservoirs in the world almost within a mile of it, and yet it had to pay much more for its water than the adjoining districts, and it was hindered undoubtedly by the fact that manufacturers who might otherwise desire to come into the Southall area could get very much cheaper terms for water immediately on the boundaries. But this raised one very big issue. The terms and prices of the Metropolitan Water Board were only possible when backed up by the immense rateable value of London. In other words, the centre of London had to some extent to assist the outside areas, and his impression was that it was not possible for a small water company like this one to supply water at the price of the Metropolitan Water Board on a remunerative basis. That was the position the House had to face, and it raised a very serious question, because if this particular area was to receive Metropolitan Water Board prices by the direction of the House, the issue was one which affected all water companies on the fringe of the Metropolitan Water Board's area, and there would be a very large number of them. It would set a very serious precedent. The position which would arise would be that every small water company on the fringe of the Metropolitan Water Board's area would not apply to Parliament for fresh powers which they might require, for fear they should have Metropolitan Water Board charges imposed on them, whether they could stand them or not. That was a serious issue, and he saw no way out of it, and that was why he supported the Committee that evening, although he sympathised with the unfortunate position in which Southall was placed.

MR. DU CROS (Hastings)

thought that the hon. Member for Stoke perhaps inadvertently had left the House under some misapprehension in regard to the facts of the case. The hon. Member was not a Member of the Committee throughout the whole of the proceedings, and when it came to deal with the specific question of charges he was no longer in the room. He had stated to the House that the charges were agreed to by the casting vote of the Chairman. As a matter of fact that did not take place. The Committee were absolutely unanimous on the question of charges and there was no division in regard to that part of the Bill at all. He had also stated that there was a division in regard to the terms of the Sunningdale agreement, whereas no such division took place. He had also led the House to believe that the majority of the Committee were in favour of allowing these extra charges for baths and other domestic purposes to be included in the rate of 7½per cent. allowed to the Sunningdale district. There was no division on that point either, and he (Mr. Du Cros) could only say again that throughout the proceedings the Committee were absolutely unanimous on the whole question of charges. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentford, he could only say he did not think that his contentions were supported by any argument, and when he said that the district of Southall was adversely a fleeted by the Bill, it was absolutely contrary to all the evidence of the witnesses called by the Southall Council. Each of those witnesses, when the specific point was put as to whether they would be better with the Bill or without it, replied in the most definite way that they would much prefer that the Bill went through, and that Southall would be in a much better position if it did go through. The hon. Member appeared to be under the impression that the Southall Council made an offer to the Committee of 7½per cent., and that that offer was adopted by the Committee, and that there was some difference of opinion as to whether it included the extra charges. As a matter of fact the Committee were perfectly cognisant of the fact that the extra charges were not included in the 7½per cent., and there was no such mistake as had been suggested. Dealing with the criticism of the company, he wished to say that it had been in. existence for twenty-six years, and a dividend had been paid during that time, averaging about 2 per cent. The quality of the water supplied left a good deal to be desired, and the quantity was also very deficient, and the whole question of charges was, in the opinion of the Committee, necessary matter for discussion. They considered that the complaints of the Southall Council were perfectly justified on these points. The Bill before the Committee was a money Bill, pure and simple, and the object of the company was to raise money for the purpose of enabling it to carry out its statutory obligations, and remedy the complaints made against it. That was made manifest by the fact that the accounts of the company were overdrawn by some£11,000. They had no capital to extend their mains or to give a proper or pure supply to the area within their control. The Southall Council made certain claims on the Committee, and they met them all. As a matter of fact they did not extend to the Southall Council the "most-favoured-nation" clause, as the ton. Member who had just spoken suggested, but gave them even better terms than any other district council of the eight included in the area. They included in Clause 5 of the Bill many special points for their protection, in order to meet the points raised by the Council. He hoped the House would support the Committee; he assured them that every point and line in the Bill had been most carefully considered. Many witnesses were examined and counsel heard by the Committee. It was in the public interest that the Bill should pass, and if these charges were altered in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, the company would be unable to raise the capital necessary to enable them to secure a good and adequate supply of water for this area.

MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)

said he only rose to make one remark. The Metropolitan Water Board had been alluded to a good deal that evening. They took part before the Committee, and they did not get their way. At the same time they accepted loyally the decision of the Committee, and he only rose to say that they were not interfering there that evening, though they would raise the same point on a future opportunity when it arrived. It had been mentioned that the Metropolitan Water Board might buy out this company. He wished the House clearly to understand that the Board had no power of any description whatever to buy this or any other company. It was a great comfort to him to hear that evening that the Board's charges were lower somewhere, because he had heard in the City of nothing but complaints as to the high charges. He personally should vote most cordially for the Third Reading of the Bill.

And, it being half-past Eleven of the Clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes before One o'clock.